EXACTLY! The comparison's of HDV being used here are not accurate. The normal workflow of acquisition to final delivered product are NOT:
1. Shoot in HDV/m2t
2. Edit in HDV/m2t
3. Color Correct/Composite/Green Screen/Filter-Effects in HDV/m2t
4. Final Render out to HDV/m2t
NO - No -No

You shoot in HDV/m2t THEN you convert to a flavor of HD intermediate codec (Cineform Aspect/Prospet, Canopus HQ) or the many other HD formats that develop independent single frames of high color space from the original HDV/m2t files. The long GOP is ended immediately. You edit in the intermediate HD codec. You deliver in the HD tape format (i.e. DVCProHD, HDCam,etc). THAT's the WORKFLOW to compare, not multiple .mt2 recompressions.

Using Cineform the files never actually end up on my computer in .m2t format (unless I tell the software to save the .m2t files also). During the capture process it is converted directly to the intermediate codec and I edit from there. Any drawbacks of mpg compression are limited to the very first acquisition written to tape and do not affect any further editing or compositing.

Brian,
Thanks for your feedback. I will keep my eyes peeled for a quality editing system when I'm close to completing the shooting of my first HD wildlife film. I've enjoyed using Edirol's Video Canvas DV-7 since 2002 and was their first Canadian customer, see an article about this on their website under stories. I understand they're working on an HD editing system right now and if it's anything like their DV-7 it will be awesome and should have firewire. On DV editing my final Digital Master is always 4th generation and 5th for Betacam SP for broadcast. I'm sure we should be able to edit HDV just like DV soon with new stuff coming out all the time, and get perfect quality.

Leon Lorenz
www.wildlifevideos.ca

i've been following this thread and this thread (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...l+h1+broadcast) and reading for hours, but i can't get my arms around the specifics of what folks are using for an HDV tape to broadcast workflow. is anyone here using FCP who can offer one? i'm hearing what *not* to do, but i'm a bit at a loss regarding what tools and workflow are actively being accepted. i'm going into a field environment where a small unobtrusive form factor is absolutely essential, so XD CAM is out. any uncompressed workflow seems out of the question in this environment. HDV seems the only option. but then what do i do with these tapes to convert them for broadcast? (having never done this before....). desperately searching for a workflow....

Depends on what the station's requirements are. You may be able to load your footage onto a hard drive and let them have it that way (as you would for a lab going to film), or you may have to dub it to Betacam SP, Digibeta, or whatever they might want.

I personally just shot a series of commercials with the H1 in HDV. all the footage was captured as 10bit uncompressed NTSC and it's stunning. it will go from FCP to Fire as uncompressed quicktimes. it will be tweaked and output to d-beta for dubbing and shipped to the networks.

I do not see any visual evidence of compression.

vince

I'm with Meryem... I know that there is a wealth of information on this subject, but it is so scattered and fragmented and opinionated that it's difficult to get a handle on exactly what is the best workflow - and how best technically to implement that workflow. I've worked with FCP since version 1.0, but I am not the type of person that gets a kick out of loading software and/or learning new APs every few weeks - I just don't have the time...

I've made seven short (8 min to 30 min) documentaries and nine commercials in the last year with the H1, all of which have been edited native HDV in FCP and output to SD for broadcast (converted in the timeline) or DVD distribution (using Compressor) - with great success, I might add...

But, I know (from what I've read here and elsewhere) that if I want to be maximizing the potential of shooting HDV I should be converting (AIC - DVPRO HD - whatever?) and editing in a different way...

What I don't know is - how (specifically) do I go about doing that and what (specific) software besides FCP do I need to do it?..

what (specific) software besides FCP do I need to do it?..[/QUOTE]

FCP has all you need as a software solution. You may want to get a Kona or Decklink card if you don't have one. That will allow you to capture your HDV component or SDI into FCP to any I-frame format. You may also need to look at your media storage depenending on the format you choose.

Again, Walter Biscardi at the Cow is finishing for HD broadcast in Final Cut. He does have HDV as the original source in some cases. His workflow is proven.

Vince

Thanks Vince - I do as a matter of fact have a DeckLink card and 1.5t external SATA drives, so I'm good there.. So the drill is to capture via component rather than FW... Ok-a-y....

I just always worry about manipulating original files in any way - I'm from the "don't step on it if you don't have to" school of thought.. I'll check that link out...

thanks, vince, i'll check it out. "proven workflow" sounds good to me!....i feel as if i've seen posted workflows for converting HDV to broadcast here at dvinfo, but at the time, i wasn't in the market, so if any of you link-wrangling wranglers can direct me that way, i'd love it. my searches are not coughing it up....

HD SDI is even better. Although I'm currently ingesting from component.

vince

Yeah, that's what I'll have to do (HD SDI) because my DeckLink HD Pro card doesn't have Component in.. which means I'm going to have to use the H1 as a deck, which I'm not too happy about...

I'm starting shooting a feature length documentary next month that is going to be labor intensive. I will be shooting over 100 tapes, so that's a lot of wear and tear on my H1... and I will be shooting 24f - I had hoped to use my A1 or buy an HV10 as the deck, but this changes things..

Do you know if this can be done effectively (converting 24f m2t files to DVPRO HD or whatever) from a Firestore?

If you can wait for the hv-20 it has hdmi out, so you could capture through that rather than using the h1 w/ hd-sdi.

Forgive me for the ignorant question, but what benefit does capturing via HDMI out from an HV20 have if you are using it to play previously recorded HDV material from tape? Other than convenience? I could see a live feed going to the PC/MAC to be encoded directly to a superior codec....but once it goes to tape as HDV is there any real "quality" benefit to capturing vis SDI or HDMI? Isn't the color information gone at this point and the compression already in place? If so why not just convert to Intermediate codec after capture?

The only potential benefit I can see is real-time conversion as it is ingested to the PC/MAC to a better codec. However I find that Aspect HD on the PC converts HDV to Cineform files in almost realtime. In fact, I actually end up with the original .m2t files along with the Cineform .avi files. I can easily archive the .m2t as they are much more "size friendly" and never have to go back to the original tape, unless there is a real emergency.

Si am I missing something here?

Kevin: Yeah, well, the HV-20 advertises 24p... if that means what I think it means, it is the end of 24f...

Marty: See, this is just what I mean when I say I get confused by this conversation... I would assume that HDV is HDV and that other than avoiding additional compression generations there would be no particular advantage..

But I have read many threads warning against editing native HDV - I have done it successfully, as I said above, for a year, but if there is a better way I want to know what it is...

And if I do chose to batch capture HDV into FCP conventionally, how do I batch convert those files to AIC or DVPRO HD? Do I have to sit there and do it one clip at a time?

"Yeah, well, the HV-20 advertises 24p... if that means what I think it means, it is the end of 24f..."

Not sure that this concern is warranted. I believe when the H1 was introduced there was a patent issue with the person who developed the method of getting 24p out the video stream - so Canon opted for the legally safe 24f nomenclature?? I remember reading that someowhere. Now maybe that issue has been resolved and they can now safely call 24f - 24p.

Chris ????

The 24F is dead from the point of view that the HV20 is natively progressive as it uses CMOS chip and thus will record 24P.

The F in 24F/25F/30F only really refers to the way the XL-H1 and XH-A1/G1s produce their progressive footage from interlaced CCDs and has little to do with the legalities of using 24P as a nomenclature it has more to do with being honest with the consumer. Which I applaud.

As we all can see 24F is 24P no matter how it is generated.

TT

Does the interlaced nature of the 24F cause artifact problems with fast pans?

Not at all.

There are no interlace artefacts at all just a slight drop in resolution. There is a slight stair stepping of bright diagonal edges but no worse than on the HVR-V1.

The "F" just means the progressive frames were cleverly created from and interlaced CCD and _not_ that it is faux progressive.

The green ccd is clocked a field out of sync to the red and blue ccds and then the dsp gets to work reconstructing a full colour progressive frame. Think of it as temporal pixel shifting.

Canon can do this because they are using very high res CCDs in the first place. Other manufacturers are using lower res CCDs and CMOS chips and even though Canon lose 10% of res in progressive mode the outcome is still as good if not better than the competition.

F=P

TT

The point being, however, that the HV20 will probably not serve well as a deck for footage shot 24f w/ the H1/A1/G1... Many have been using the Hv10 for that purpose.. hopefully that little camera will not go away immediately..

Also, it seems likely that the much contemplated successor to the H1 will have progressive CMOS chips and offer true 24p and at even higher resolution than 1080i...

What makes you say that, Steve? The HV10 and HV20 share the exact same tape transport. There's no absolutely difference between them as far as playback capabilities are concerned, and there's no logical reason why an HV20 wouldn't serve well as an HV10, as a deck for footage shot in Frame mode from the bigger Canon camcorders.

Then it wouldn't be HDV. It's still a little early for that yet.

I think honest misinformation takes on a life of its own. Not that Tony is wrong, but theories abound:

1.) CMOS pixels are byte addressable
2.) That this or that sensor is natively progressive

I won't accept these distinctions until proved. As to the first point, who really has any earthly idea how a chip is scanned, i.e. shift register versus byte addressable? It's one thing when you have a product data sheet on it, which in the case of proprietary chips made by Canon themselves for their consumer products, you don't! Until proved otherwise, (and I'd love to be) this information just comes down the same old marketing pipeline.

As to the second point, it flies in the face of logic that so called natively progressive sensors find first applications in interlaced cams, witness FX7 and HV10.

I think at most what could be said is that a chip is inherently neither progressive or interlaced. It's just what is done with it.

Tom

There are progressive CCDs and interlaced CCDs used in HVX 200 and XL-H1 respectively. How they create non-native streams is down to the intellectual wherewithal of the manufacturer.

You were right to pick me up on saying that CMOS are natively progressive. I should have qualified what I meant to avoid ambiguity. Clearly Canon differentiate between 24F and 24P themselves. I suspect the HV20 will scan its CMOS chips progressively when recording 24P thus Canon use the P. 24F being derived from interlaced CCDs they feel unable to label it 24P progressive even though it is.

In 60i/50i I would expect the HV20 CMOS chips to be scanned interlaced. But there are several ways to skin a cat in that regard. It could scan 60P/50P and leave the interlacing to the encoder. Who knows?

TT

Boy, I hate to open up a can of worms, but...
 

Sorry to bring this up again, buy last year a Canon Rep told me at a Canon showing off of the H1 that you could record to tape and yet capturing through the HD-SDI port to another codec would allow for more robust info to come in than normal HDV.
Now, some people have claimed this, but this has generally been shot down by everyone who knows anything.
I have a feeling this workflow was what the person was referring to

Scott Billups told me face-to-face about this method and swears by it.

What happens in this scenario John, is that in order to comply with the specs of HDSDI, the camera will take the recorded material which is 4:2:0 long gop, and upsample the chroma back to 4:2:2 uncompressed and spit it out that way. The quality of chroma upsampling is questionable by many, but others say it makes a difference, especially for pulling cleaner keys.

-gb-

Yes Chris,
I will wait until WWDC to see about a MacPro purchase and get the Footage in this way Myself,
Thanks,
J

For best quality, the HD SDI should be taken straight out of the camera, not recorded first onto HDV.

http://videoediting.digitalmedianet....e.jsp?id=43573

For using an intermediate codec in post, here's Cineform's arguement:

http://www.cineform.com/technology/H...tyAnalysis.htm

Most everyone here already knows that. The point is that it's not always possible to do record straight from SDI though, especially when shooting in the field. The methodology that John brought up (record to HDV, but play back via SDI output) is not being positioned here as anything other than just a better way to ingest material that was originally recorded to HDV.

Yes, recording from the HD SDI in the field is a problem, for example the Wafian HR-1 operates from the mains and doesn't seem to have a means for battery power.

true HD
 

Hello,
We are considering purchasing 2 or 3 XL-H1s as the PBS station we deal with has suggested "true HD".
Can we capture "true HD" using a disk recorder such as the one listed here.

http://www.videoguys.com/FireStore.h...CAPTURIN-28938

Thanks so much,
Randy
We are also considering one of the Sony XDCAMs but they really aren't in our budget.

Can you get a more detailed description of what is PBS is calling "True HD?" My understanding is that 1920x1080 is what "True HD" is supposed to be. (I believe this is mostly a marketing gimmick to sandbag competition that records 1280x720 on lower res chips anyway). But the only camera I know of that has a "True HD" chip is the HV10 and HV20 but they record to 1440x1080 1.33 PAR compressed HDV. So they are not stored at "true HD" resolution.

The H1 actually has a 1440x1080 Chip that stores at 1440x1080 compressed HDV. Which is better? I think the H1. The H1 will allow for you to use the SDI out and bypass all of the HDV compression. But you still aren't getting 1920x1080 out the SDI spigot. I mean...it might be that resolution but the original chip wasn't so it kinda upsampled.

The HV20 supposedly outputs true 1920x1080 through its HDMI connector. That might technically be a "true HD" feed but this camera is not a real option for professional videography because of the form factor and consumerish layout. Still, if you are just looking at numbers it does output "true HD" but numbers aren't everything. The image from an H1 at 1440x1080 is going to look light years better than the HV20 at 1920x1080 simply by virtue of better design. Numbers are just that. Numbers.

Either way, the Firestore you are linking to will only record the HDV stream of either of these cameras and that is a 1440x1080 stream. So again....no true HD from either of them using this device.

<i>Can you get a more detailed description of what is PBS is calling "True HD?" My understanding is that 1920x1080 is what "True HD" is supposed to be. (I believe this is mostly a marketing gimmick to sandbag competition that records 1280x720 on lower res chips anyway)</i>

Thanks Marty,
I agree and I don't know what they're calling "true HD" other than it meeting the criteria to be broadcast as HD. We've been using a couple of XL1S' and a Sony Z1. They (PBS) used the Z1 as an example of not being "true HD". This was a prog director though and may not know what he's talking about.
We have the option of buying more Z1s, XL-H1, or the $18K Sony XDCAM. I feel the XDCAM is more than we need at this point.

Thanks again Marty,
Randy

Depending on what their specifics are, the Z1 may not meet them. Heck, the H1 might not meet them. The problem here is there needs to be a clear precise description of what "True HD" is. Then we can determine what they will accept. Many have bought into the hype that HDV is not really HD when in fact it is. Many have bought into the hype that the HDV format is so compressed that is is unwatchable. This is not true.

Good Luck and let us know if you get any real answers to this!

Marty

Years ago... or ages ago... I remember an engineer at the local PBS station in HB, CA say... about broadcasting the tape (which was airable) at the time.

"What can be broadcasted. Well, it depends on which engineer is working at the time of airing."

I'm thinking that what the prog director is basing his statement on is some of the footage has poor composition by some of the interns we have in the past handed a camera to and said "here go shoot". Poor lighting etc. may subconciously trigger a prog director to think it is the quality of the cam when in fact, as you know, an inexperienced camera operator can make a $100K camera look bad. If the show is shot well (from now on) and the content is satisfactory to them (which is) I don't think they'll reject it but maybe I should make sure prior to the purchase.
Anyway, this purchase is on my shoulders and I guess I just want you guys to agree that the H1 is the best choice for this price point.

Thanks again,
Randy

Find out what tape formats they take and give it to them on that...

I am going through this as we speak - I have a 30 minute documentary that was shot on the H1, edited native HDV on FCP and looks drop-dead gorgeous - But I've got to get it past PBS engineer-types who have their heads buried so deep in their scopes they haven't seen a real-life image in years - sorry for the rant, but, I've commented on this over the past year several times...

These arbitrary assertions are obviously intended to give PMs easy ways to say "no" (or if they've been brought up correctly "no thank you").

But, in their defence, the proliferation of consumer and prosumer cameras has resulted in a lot of garbage being produced.. A LOT!!! Like thousands and thousands of shows passing across desks that were built to accomodate a max of 100 tapes... So they've made up little rules to eliminate a large segment of submissions...

In most cases they aren't even airing in HD anyway.. In my case I'm providing a DigiBeta or, where appropriate, an HDCam dub - and not telling them what I shot it on.. and so far no one has asked...

Randy,

Have you seen this clip. If not, it's really useful.

http://www.studiodaily.com/main/video/7871.html

Several pro's discussing the use of HDV. Bear in mind that the H1 has an HD-SDI output bypassing HDV compression.

I think they mention that really well shot HDV can hold up to the bigger cams. Poorly shot HDV is hard to save in post.

Thanks very much guys...lots of good advice and info!
Randy