Ok...I have read several long articles on the subject. If the resident expert could just give me a simple one line answer to the following questions it would be appreciated. I will look up the rest if needed.

First off...I have the A1U, Pepped up computer and Sony Vegas 6.0D. Here are my questions.

1) Is it recommended to use an alternate app like Cineforme Connect HD to transfer HD files to the computer? Assuming any speed increase would be wanted. If the answer is yes...is Connect HD the one to get? If the answer is no please give a simple answer as listed below.

2) If I am just wanting to convert HD to SD for DVD use what is the best method? Simple answer please. For example...Connect HD to Sony Vegas to SD (This was made up but you get the idea :-))

3) Is the in camera down convert any good? Ignore if this was listed above.

** Couple of other items. I like the use of split files and would like any significant time increase I could gain.

I really am just looking for simple answers rather than waste everyones time any more than I already have.

Thanks for your help

HDV Split is a good capturing application from camera to computer. It can split scenes automatically if you want, although I have had a few problems with HDV Split recently. One where it split every few seconds, and skipped (didn't capture) every few seconds of footage. Another where it would capture tons of artifacts even though none were present on the tape when played via the camera. And third, when it suddenly got some sort of error and wouldn't capture. This was the older 0.7 version. The 0.75 version may have fixed some of this. Overall, I'm impressed with HDV Split, supposedly better than Vegas's internal capturing app. HDV Split catures original .m2t files.

Personally, I would shoot HDV footage, bring it in and edit on a HDV timeline, but when exporting, I would render as DV Widescreen. Be sure to adjust pixel aspect ratios to match, or stretch to fill output. I've been having some problems with black bars on the sides.

Alex -

I have been experimenting with different methods using mainly cineform and camera downsample. For the life of me I cannot figure out why the camera downsample looks better to me. Just using some 20 second clips and have checked and rechecked my vegas settings. I know the experts have said this should not be the case, but I am lost. I am using Vegas 6.0D and also am using a video program capable of handling interlaced video on the computer. Hmmmm very frustrating.

Any ideas?

Michael,

There is no simple answer because it depends on what you are doing with the footage and what type of project it is. Here is my workflow: If I’m going straight to SD DVD without a lot of color correcting and it’s not a project I want an HDV archive of, I will downconvert in camera and work in DV Widescreen. This is the simplest and quickest way to work if you are going to SD DVD. I have a Z1U (not the A1U) and there is absolutely nothing wrong with the in-camera downconvert on the Z1 and yes, at times it’s better than what Vegas can do. It all depends on the footage.

If I need to do a lot of color correcting or chroma key, or I want to do zooming, or I want to archive an HDV version of the project, I will capture HDV. How I capture HDV is determined by my audio setup. If I’m using camera audio, I will use Connect HD and capture direct to CineForm AVI. If, however, I’m using my field recorder, then all the audio has to be synced. So what I do is capture M2T files in Vegas, sync that will all the audio and then use GearShift to render CineForm files in Vegas with the good audio. This saves a lot of audio sync headaches later on because now I have a good video/audio copy to work with.

The advantage of using an application like Connect HD is for time savings (you just capture once instead of capture and render in Vegas) but the quality is the same as what Vegas will give you for. Connect HD is also useful for any of the other features like scene detection/split, CF24 3:2 pulldown removal or 25p-24p conversion. So if I’m capturing a play, the scene detection isn’t needed because the camera is rolling constantly. But if I’m shooting a project with lots of starts and stops, I’ll also use Connect HD for the scene splits.

Like I said, there is no simple answer. It all depends on what you are shooting and what you are doing with the footage in post.

~jr

Michael,

There is no simple answer because it depends on what you are doing with the footage and what type of project it is. Here is my workflow: If I’m going straight to SD DVD without a lot of color correcting and it’s not a project I want an HDV archive of, I will downconvert in camera and work in DV Widescreen. This is the simplest and quickest way to work if you are going to SD DVD. I have a Z1U (not the A1U) and there is absolutely nothing wrong with the in-camera downconvert on the Z1 and yes, at times it’s better than what Vegas can do. It all depends on the footage.

If I need to do a lot of color correcting or chroma key, or I want to do zooming, or I want to archive an HDV version of the project, I will capture HDV. How I capture HDV is determined by my audio setup. If I’m using camera audio, I will use Connect HD and capture direct to CineForm AVI. If, however, I’m using my field recorder, then all the audio has to be synced. So what I do is capture M2T files in Vegas, sync that will all the audio and then use GearShift to render CineForm files in Vegas with the good audio. This saves a lot of audio sync headaches later on because now I have a good video/audio copy to work with.

The advantage of using an application like Connect HD is for time savings (you just capture once instead of capture and render in Vegas) but the quality is the same as what Vegas will give you for. Connect HD is also useful for any of the other features like scene detection/split, CF24 3:2 pulldown removal or 25p-24p conversion. So if I’m capturing a play, the scene detection isn’t needed because the camera is rolling constantly. But if I’m shooting a project with lots of starts and stops, I’ll also use Connect HD for the scene splits.

Like I said, there is no simple answer. It all depends on what you are shooting and what you are doing with the footage in post.

~jr

Thanks for your reply John. It just seems like I am setting something wrong in either Connect HD or Vegas. Everything I have read, including many posts by you and your partners, have suggested that connecthd to vegas should be better than down conversion from the A1. I am just not seeing that which make me believe my settings are some what off. I have 14 days left on my trial of HD Connect before any decisions are made. It is a brand new version 3.0 (according to their reps). I am sure they would not change something that would be throwing me off. Either way...I do appreciate your response.

Hey...any chance you guys will be making the vegas 6.0 tutorials available for download rather than shipping?

So this is frustrating. I've read the same thing over and over also--that you shouldn't downconvert in camera with the Hd100. Very confusing! keep us posted!

I just did another test and put it on dvd this time. I thought I was choosing the cineform, but it turned out to be the camera downconvert that proved best. I am seeing a bit of flickering on some writing in the shot with the cineform conversion. Nothing at all with the same shot from the cam downconvert. I am using the exact same settings for my project in Vegas for both clips. 1080 60i (Not the sony version), deinterlacing none, etc... but still getting different results. I am not doing any modifications in vegas either. When rendering I am using MainConcept MPEG-2, and dvd architecht NTSC widescreen video stream, best quality, bottom interlaced etc. for both. Still...the video looks much better from the camcorder.

Help needed here.

Thanks

Funny thing...I am putting both the cineform conversions and the down converts from the camera into the same project settings in Vegas (i.e. 1080i). From there I convert to the NTSC...

Is there some type of extra sampling happening in vegas because of this?

Hello,

I sympathize with you.

I have spent hours, and hours, and hours, and days, and days (you get the picture) testing all of these different conversions.

Nobody so far has been able to convince me that downconverting using Cineform, Vegas, or any other software is better than allowing the camera to do the conversion. The camera does as good (if not better) a conversion than the software and you don't land up with interlace issues etc. etc. etc.

In all of my tests the file created when allowing the camera to perform the conversion is larger than the file created by any of the software. That at least tells me that nothing is going 'missing' when allowing the camera to perform the conversion.

Having said all of the above I see no reason to capture HDV and then wait hours and hours to render an SD file when the file created by the camera's own downconvert is as good or better.

By the way - all of my findings are based on the Sony FX1E, Sony Vegas 6.0d, and Cineform Connect HD. I don't know the A1U.

Regards,

Dale.

It just seems like I am setting something wrong in either Connect HD or Vegas. Everything I have read, including many posts by you and your partners, have suggested that connecthd to vegas should be better than down conversion from the A1. I am just not seeing that which make me believe my settings are some what off. I have 14 days left on my trial of HD Connect before any decisions are made. It is a brand new version 3.0 (according to their reps). I am sure they would not change something that would be throwing me off. Either way...I do appreciate your response.The difference should not be that noticeable. Something else must be going on. Have you tried rendering to CineForm in Vegas and compared that with capturing CineForm in Connect HD? That would be an apples-to-apples test. Personally, I think Connect HD is worth it for the time savings and scene detection alone.

Where capturing HDV really makes a difference is if you do chroma key (I do this a lot for the VASST training DVD’s) or if you are doing a lot of color correcting. This is because HDV is 4:2:0 color space which gives you more color information to work with than DV which is only 4:1:1. Since SD DVD’s are also 4:2:0, capturing HDV, working in HDV, and rendering to SD DVD will keep your footage in the 4:2:0 color space the whole time and produce the best color results.

Capturing HDV also helps if you are shooting an event with only one camera but want it to look like a two camera shoot. What you do is take a wide shot and then zoom in and cut between two subjects in post. Because HDV has 4x the resolution of DV, you can pull this off with no loss in quality if your delivery is SD DVD.

Of course all this is moot once we have BlueRay or HD DVD to deliver on.

~jr

The difference should not be that noticeable. Something else must be going on. Have you tried rendering to CineForm in Vegas and compared that with capturing CineForm in Connect HD? That would be an apples-to-apples test. Personally, I think Connect HD is worth it for the time savings and scene detection alone.

Where capturing HDV really makes a difference is if you do chroma key (I do this a lot for the VASST training DVD’s) or if you are doing a lot of color correcting. This is because HDV is 4:2:0 color space which gives you more color information to work with than DV which is only 4:1:1. Since SD DVD’s are also 4:2:0, capturing HDV, working in HDV, and rendering to SD DVD will keep your footage in the 4:2:0 color space the whole time and produce the best color results.

~jr

Okay but even the JVC website touts the superior performance of capturing in hdv and downconverting in your nle rather that originating in sd--for the reasons you mention about 420 versus 411. but you're the first person to say that the difference should only matter for chroma keying, the jvc website says the color info makes a big difference, chroma keyed or not. which makes sense since a dvd shot on dvd would only be 4.1.0 versus 4.2.0 that should be noticeable difference....

There's something fishy going on here....

The difference should not be that noticeable. Something else must be going on. Have you tried rendering to CineForm in Vegas and compared that with capturing CineForm in Connect HD? That would be an apples-to-apples test. Personally, I think Connect HD is worth it for the time savings and scene detection alone.

Where capturing HDV really makes a difference is if you do chroma key (I do this a lot for the VASST training DVD’s) or if you are doing a lot of color correcting. This is because HDV is 4:2:0 color space which gives you more color information to work with than DV which is only 4:1:1. Since SD DVD’s are also 4:2:0, capturing HDV, working in HDV, and rendering to SD DVD will keep your footage in the 4:2:0 color space the whole time and produce the best color results.

Capturing HDV also helps if you are shooting an event with only one camera but want it to look like a two camera shoot. What you do is take a wide shot and then zoom in and cut between two subjects in post. Because HDV has 4x the resolution of DV, you can pull this off with no loss in quality if your delivery is SD DVD.

Of course all this is moot once we have BlueRay or HD DVD to deliver on.

~jr


I will keep working on it. BlueRay and/or HD DvD will be nice. Unfortunately...even when they become available the other party will still, atleast, need a blueray or HD DVD player. Atleast with DVD -/+ R most current players had them covered. It is kind of the like the current situation where they would need something to play the HD tape. At the immediate street prices you are looking at $999 for a BlueRay player and $499 for a HD DVD player. Still very high. Oh well...

Personally, I think Connect HD is worth it for the time savings and scene detection alone.

~jr

John - I agree 100% on the time saving with Connect HD. This is why I am really wanting to get the quality there. I will try the Cineform within Sony later on. I have never done that so I will have to read up on it.

Thanks again

... you're the first person to say that the difference should only matter for chroma keyingI did NOT say that the difference should only matter for chroma keying. Go back and read my post. I said “where this really makes a difference” meaning “you will see an even bigger difference if you are doing chroma key because you will get a much better key from HDV footage than DV footage”. This is partly because of the color space and partly because of the higher resolution of HDV. I also mentioned that color correcting was better with HDV footage than DV footage. So I don’t see how you could think that I was only referring to chroma key as the only reason to capture HDV when SD is your target.

the jvc website says the color info makes a big difference, chroma keyed or not. which makes sense since a dvd shot on dvd would only be 4.1.0 versus 4.2.0 that should be noticeable difference... As for the BIG difference, if your eyes can’t see it, then there is no difference. So why don’t you try it for yourself. Capture a scene as an HDV file and convert it to DVD quality MPEG2. Now capture the same scene as DV downconvert and render it DVD quality MPEG2. Place both scene on a DVD and burn. I would bet that there isn't that much difference depending on the footage. Now under certain conditions it is probably more noticeable but only in a side-by-side comparison. In blind tests with one or the other I would bet that you can’t tell the difference. It is subtle. It’s not dramatic and the average person would never know.

Perhaps the JVC in-camera downconvert isn’t as good as the Sony downconvert which is why JVC doesn’t recommend using it. I don’t know. I do know my Sony Z1U downconvert is absolutely gorgeous.

~jr

I did this test a while back...comparing convertions on camera and on Vegas. I seen no difference at all. But the main reason I am not using the camera to convert is I would like the option of making a dvd and also saving it to HDV tape.

I would pick up Connect HD because its a much quicker way to get m2t in a workable condition on Vegas timeline.

I did this test a while back...comparing convertions on camera and on Vegas. I seen no difference at all. But the main reason I am not using the camera to convert is I would like the option of making a dvd and also saving it to HDV tape

When you did the comparison, you viewed the test footage in SD how?

When you did the comparison, you viewed the test footage in SD how?


Both camera convertion and Vegas converstion was both delivered onto DVD

I now have 3 20 second shots. One from down conert, one from HD Connect and the other from direct transfer of HD to computer and then to cineform in vegas. Am putting them on DVD as I speak. Kind of crappy shot so to speak...since it was done in my computer room and basically a very slow zoom in on some colorfull boxes. Should help shed some light so to speak. Will post my sad eyes findings...

John -

When I watch the 3 videos on my TV (dvd) I notice the lettering on the boxes starts flickering. When I pause it looks like each line of the sentence on the box is going every which way (horizontal S shape). This happens with every clip but definately more pronounced with the Connect HD and Cineform in Sony. The downconvert is very subtle but still there. To me, this shows the connect HD and Cineform to show more detail in the shot which is a good thing. My question...what is causing this? I am using 60i and I have a DLP HD tv which is based on 720P but can do 1080I. Not sure on my dvd player. Could this be a tv/player issue or something else? I wil say that I use VLC player to show my shots on my computer and it does not show up there. Maybe it is in the dvd process as well, but I play the dvd on my comp without this issue.

Michael, you're not alone. I too am experience flickering on my final dvd using Connect HD. A sales rep once told me thats the norm for videos..."cannot help". Can someone shed some light on this??

One procedure which you already may be using...

Scaling (changing video resolution) is one of the processes that benefits from going into "custom" in the rendering dialog and changing render quality from "good" to "best".

This would apply to any render to SD from HD or HDV.

Scaling (changing video resolution) is one of the processes that benefits from going into "custom" in the rendering dialog and changing render quality from "good" to "best".



Maybe I am to meticulous when it comes to videos..but I yeild the same results. Also it takes longer to render when its on "best"

One procedure which you already may be using...

Scaling (changing video resolution) is one of the processes that benefits from going into "custom" in the rendering dialog and changing render quality from "good" to "best".

This would apply to any render to SD from HD or HDV.

Already have it set to best. I have read and re read everything in these groups about quality and thoughts on hd to sd conversion. I have gone over everthing again and again, but the basic items are not it. Best was an obvious one...I need something that I am missing here. I really do appreciate the responses, but it is something not obvious.

Thanks again guys

I am realy leaning towards player now. The dvd will play on my computer without the flickering...on my home dvd player it has the word/phrase flickering etc as mentioned. Either way...very frustrating. Is it the camera? not sure. Vegas? not sure. DVD authoring? Well...hmmm...possible, but why would it play fine on the computer via dvd and not the player? If it is the player...what now. So I have to find out what everyone dvd player is before sending? LOL...I am not actually that uptight, but I think it is something minor, yet not obvious, that I am missing. I have the Best setting, no blend unless Progressive, etc...

I just finished two big projects that I shot in HDV with the final output to DVD. I searched the forum and a found a little information to use as a starting point for my projects. After a little experimentation here is what works best for me with the best quality (my opinion only).

1. Using the HVR-A1U, I recorded in HDV 1080/60i mode.
2. I used Cineform to capture and convert to a Cineform intermediate avi file.
3. I used Vegas to render a MPEG2 NTSC DVD file, using these custom settings: video quality set to BEST and PROGRESSIVE instead of interlaced.

Here are the results when using the above method:

1. No funky or wavy lines with artifacts.
2. Black bars at the top and bottom of the screen just like a widescreen DVD you would buy at the store.
3. A very crisp, almost film-like look far surpassing standard DV to DVD quality.

Problems I encountered:

1. When rendering 1080i to 480i, I got horrible jagged and wavy lines.
2. When not using the best method, the picture was not as good.
3. You can get the same result as rendering progressive by right clicking the media in the timeline and selecting reduce interlace flicker. But if you have 20 clips, you have to do that 20 times. I think its easier and quicker to change the render settings to progressive.

Additional observations:

1. I watched the progressive DVD on an interlaced TV and a progressive scan TV. It looked great on both. I think there are plenty of pixels to go from interlaced to progressive while still maintaining high quality resolution.
2. I'm guessing that alot of the problems that everyone has encountered are how Vegas handles the downcoversion for different settings and how the TV's perform interlacing.
3. I really don't have the technical expertise to explain #2 in more detail, but I am very methodical. I rendred multiple files using multiple methods. Each time I recorded the settings and took notes to determine the best method. This is how I arrived at the workflow listed at the beginning of my post.
4. If you see the lines on your TV, but not your PC this is probably due to your DVD software deinterlacing your video and/or your PC monitor being progressive scan.

I hope this helps out. Some of this I figured out on my own, some I found out searching this forum so I don't want to take all of the credit :)

Last time I posted video files, you guys used up all of my bandwidth and shut my site down! If someone would be nice enough to let me FTP a few files to their server, I can post a few videos that demonstrate my findings.

Thanks,

Michael

Great job Michael! Are there any other settings in "BEST" mode? Like selecting the 2 pass or etc?

I just leave everything else the same and the results are excellent.

To Michael May:

Michael, I'm just curious.

I just tried your 'best' settings on some footage of mine. Do you not see any interlace flicker or 'stutter' on panning or movement when using your 'best' settings (when put on DVD and viewed on a normal TV of course)?

Regards,

Dale.

I just finished two big projects that I shot in HDV with the final output to DVD. I searched the forum and a found a little information to use as a starting point for my projects. After a little experimentation here is what works best for me with the best quality (my opinion only).

1. Using the HVR-A1U, I recorded in HDV 1080/60i mode.
2. I used Cineform to capture and convert to a Cineform intermediate avi file.
3. I used Vegas to render a MPEG2 NTSC DVD file, using these custom settings: video quality set to BEST and PROGRESSIVE instead of interlaced.



Michael

I followed this .... render from "best" and "good" yeilded the same resuts, I see no difference. I still see "wavy, and funky artifacts" especially with movements of the camera.

fred,
those wavy funky artefacts are the result of scaling an interlaced frame.

interlaced frame is comprised of 2 image fields. These 2 image fields is interlaced 1 line (1pixel horizontally) of each other to create a frame.

if u scale down this 1 pixel lines interlaced frame, you'll mess up the 1 pixel line construction, cause they'll be resampled or averaged together. Hence the wavy artefacts.

to avoid this wavy artefacts, & to downconvert interlaced material correctly (eg 60i or 50i), you have to first seperate the fields, scale them down, the re-interlace them.

I haven't tested vegas to do this, but most compositing app like after effects, combustion, shake, can do this.

I suspect in vegas, ther'll be no field separation step. I suspect vegas will deinterlace the frame to the best, that's why your camcorder's downconvert is better than vegas's... it's because vegas deinterlace the material, while camcorder does the separate field method.

to test this, try downconverting a 25P or 30P (cineframe) material both in vegas & using the camcorder. Use progressive project, with no deinterlacing. I think the result will be identical.

fred,
your camcorder's downconvert is better than vegas's... it's because vegas deinterlace the material, while camcorder does the separate field method.

to test this, try downconverting a 25P or 30P (cineframe) material both in vegas & using the camcorder. Use progressive project, with no deinterlacing. I think the result will be identical.


I have two identical clips. One is a raw m2t file and the other is downconverted from fx1. Placed both on the time line and render it out to DVDA with properties: nonprogressive and no deinterlacing render set to "good". I don't see any difference on the "wavy artifacts during camera movement" its still there. I think I might be missing a step here. Can someone list how their are going about with HDV into Vegas getting the final product on HDV tape and to dvd.

that's why your camcorder's downconvert is better than vegas's... it's because vegas deinterlace the material, while camcorder does the separate field method.

.


That statement simply isn't so. Additionally, you lose quite a bit going to 4:1:1 vs working in 4:2:2 all the way through (CineForm HDI)

The wavy lines are likely coming from a misrun field, but Fred, can you post a short bit of your raw m2t file (say....3 sec?) and then post stills of the problem?
Are you using "BEST" as part of your downconvert?

Going from CFHD file back to HDV looks identical from the original m2t. But going to DVDA is great but just that wavy artifacts during camera movements. Here are my steps when doing a project:

Load m2t footage usuing Connect HD
Load onto Vegas time line do editing
Print back to HDV tape with the proper settings. Used "GOOD". Product looks identical with the original footage.

Now to DVDA. I use the same render file that was render for tape and adjust the project properties settings for dvd (change template for nstc dv, non-progressive, blend fields...) I have been using "GOOD" instead of "BEST" because it takes to long to process. Am I missing something or doing something wrong?

Thanks for everyone's input!!

Now to DVDA. I use the same render file that was render for tape and adjust the project properties settings for dvd (change template for nstc dv, non-progressive, blend fields...) I have been using "GOOD" instead of "BEST" because it takes to long to process. Am I missing something or doing something wrong?
!!

Back up da' bus...
you're rendering in DVD A for your DVDs?
STOP that. It's no where near as good, and doesn't offer the "BEST" option for resampling. Use the free DVD prep in Vegas if you must, but render for DVD in Vegas, not DVD A if you're starting from HDV.

Sorry for the confusion but after I print to tape I use that same file (m2t) and render to go to dvd. I place it on Vegas timeline, hit tools,scripting, then batch render and I select the appropriate mpeg2 which is DVDA NSTC widescreen then I select the audio which is stereo dvd. Next I open that new rendered file into DVDA.

That statement simply isn't so. Additionally, you lose quite a bit going to 4:1:1 vs working in 4:2:2 all the way through (CineForm HDI)


hi Douglas,

yes i agree about the lost in color space. But regarding quality loss, there're several aspect:
- color space
- scaling algo (bicubic, lanczos, etc)
- scaling method with regard to interlaced source

i think the most visually discernible loss is the last one.

let's leave the 4:1:1 or the 4:2:0(PAL) & the scaling algo for now, my question:

how do you think HDV 1080/50i recorded material, downconverted in the camera thru the camera's DV output is done?

remember that the output is DV interlaced. The source in tape is HDV interlaced, and the downconverted out from the camera's DV out is also interlaced. How does the camera do it?

thx.

How the camera does it, is first; it's never progressive, so I'm not sure why you're riding that horse.
Second, the actual method is proprietary. I know how it's done, but NDA precludes it from being discussed.
Third, having done a LOT of testing for personal and professional use, using Vegas, AE/Algolith, and other tools for scaling, Vegas does a better job than the camera overall.
Forgetting about the colorspace/compression is like saying "well....without the 450HP engine, the indy 500 car is still an Indy 500 car, it just doesn't go as fast."
No, it's no longer an Indy 500 car.

Are we supposed to forget about resolution, too, while we're forgetting about/ignoring color sampling? So...the additional value of more chroma is to be ignored?
Sorry, at no point can I go along with your logic. I'm usually open-minded, but to say:
~you've not tested it in Vegas
~ignore 4:1:1/4:2:0 for PAL
~Work with DV rather than HD in CineForm
all adds up to a lack of experience with the format and the output. On the other hand, I've easily got 2000 hours of tape from every HDV cam out there. And have converted *most* of it for SD delivery, along with HDCAM delivery.

Finally, what if he wants to deliver in HD at some point in time? In-camera conversion obviates that option. Completely.
If you've got the computer horsepower, and even suspect you'll ever want an HD version of the project, and aren't using GearShift, then you're simply nuts to convert in-camera. CineForm is by far the most elegant solution, and any other HDI is still a better solution. Better still is not downconverting, but rather UP converting at capture to a 4:2:2 uncompressed stream via a Decklink card. The difference, delivered to SD, is substantial.

hi Fred,

letme explain again in a different way,

your m2t is 1440x1080 interlaced.
and DVD is 720x480, also interlaced.

apparently, vegas scaled the source without managing the fields, so you get a DVD with messed interlaced lines because of scaling down.

pls see this link for more detailed explanation with images:
http://www.100fps.com/

thx.

Dear Douglas,

i'm sorry but i think u misunderstood my posts.

- i'm not challenging your expertise, infact i agree with you!

- i'm just asking how you think the camera manage fields regarding scaling down an interlaced source.

- i do not ignore the other aspects (color space, etc), infact i agree with u. I donot ignore them, i just want to focus it to my question, about the downconvertion method in camera regarding interlaced HDV.

- yes, my replies are not tested, since testing will take time, that's why in my posts i say " i suspect... " or " i think..." , yet i dont just make it up..., (humbly speaking) i'm a tech director, also a VFX compositor, 3D artist, also a sound engineer, was a multimedia teacher altho i've not written any book. Now i work proffesionally as a TD & postpro manager, doing feature films & tv series.

- i'm not working in DV. i'm just trying to answer Michael's & Fred's question here. I work with many formats, even from PC<>MACs. I did 1 feature film shot using Z1, recorded in 4:2:2 using HD-SDI converter from Z1 recorded in a DVCPRO HD deck.

All in all, please re-read my posts, i'm not confronting you, infact i agree with you, i just had a question for you.

best regards,
hornady.

an example of misunderstanding:

How the camera does it, is first; it's never progressive, so I'm not sure why you're riding that horse.

i'm not riding that horse. I agree with you. I explained in my post, the camera does the field separation and then scale them down. In another word, the camera does the scaling in the field domain.

it's just a matter of different words towards the same answer.

my best regards,
hornady/

Fred, and others who have seen "wavy footage" when rendering from Vegas:

In the project properties, what do you have the Deinterlace Method set to? I learnt from Laurence in the Vegas forum that if you have the deinterlace method set to "none" you get nasty artifacts. This is for a render to interlaced.... even though you actually aren't deinterlacing this seems to make a difference. Setting the Deinterlace Method to "Blend Fields" seems to fix it.

Mark

Okay I have read some old threads and done practically everything that is said out there in these forum. From what I had been doing since day one I'll stick to it. I guess I can't get any better dvd out of it and will come to terms that its "the nature of the beast" kind of thing. I admit the footage looks awsome, just that it has some flaws probably not noticeable to the average Joe but I guess I am very meticulous. Not the whole footage is wavy or shaky..just certain areas depending on the objects and the movements. Thanks for a great forum.