Editing for HDTV
 

After considering various alternatives -- Hard Drive players, Streaming DVD players, I have found my solution to editing HD1 footage for HDTV.

I bought the new dual core Apple Mini computer and used the HDTV as the monitor. HD1 clips are easily imported and edited in iMovie. For the more professional, there is Final Cut Pro. The edited final is exported as HD Quicktime, stored and played back from the computer, which is very small.

This solution is not inexpensive; the dual core minis start at US$ 799, and at some point additional storage will be required. But I am really thrilled with the quality of the result, the ease of the process and how quickly it can be accomplished. Rendering takes about 3 or 4 times the running length of the video, as opposed to 32 times when rendering to WMV9 in Vegas on the PC, and then not knowing what to do with the product. There are also fringe benefits in having all the features of a computer, including internet access, presented on a crystal clear 60 inch screen.

This is a big step for someone who has resisted Apple computers for a very long time!

Peter,
How does the HD-1 video look on your 60" HDTV?

Hi John,

Just a pleasant reminder to always search first.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...234#post446234

To elaborate, the video not only looks fabulous on the HDTV, having it so readily available on the Mac Mini is a treat as well.

The render processing is sufficiently rapid that I am willing to go back, fix some little thing and render again (at least with shorter videos). With the interminable render times on Vegas, I would have just let it go.

Peter,

If you are looking for good storage options for your Mac, allow me to suggest the XiMeta Netdisk. It's a cheap drive enclosure that acts like a fileserver.

The beauty of this drive is that you can connect it either by USB2 or LAN. I dropped mine onto a port on the router and have access to it from any machine that is behind my firewall. My enclosure contains a 250GB drive but I've read that they'll take more. You can also purchase an additional enclosure and RAID or mirror them, giving you twice the space or redundancy, whichever you feel is of greater importance.

With this option, both your Mac and PC can share the drive. You'll have access from either system, plenty of space, and sufficient performance.

Here's a link to the manufacturer's product information page:
http://www.ximeta.com/products/netwo...disk/index.php

and the brochure:
http://www.ximeta.com/files/netdisk_p.pdf

I should also mention that the performance of this drive is much faster than traditional fileservers offer (when accessed by a single system), which is why I think it will be a good option for video editing. Additionally, you can make the most of your hardware by using your Mac to store your primary video and this drive to receive your edits. The performance will be much greater than if you use either drive exclusively.

That sounds great Peter.

Macs are brilliant.

XiMeta Netdisk
 

Hi Chris,

Thanks for the heads-up on XiMeta.

The fastest network speed that I could find on ZiMeta's products was 100 Mbps fast ethernet. That is much too slow for high def video.

I would be very interested in their products at 1000 Mbps gigabit ethernet speeds.

Hi Maury,

The sustained throughput I get on mine is 8MB/sec, or 64 Mbits/sec. I'm transferring 1GB in 2 mins 3 seconds while connected at 100BT Full Duplex. That's seven times the stream rate of our video and very close to the maximum sustained transfer rate of the drive I put in the XiMeta case.

I hope it's fast enough... my laptop's new internal drive is slower. ;)

Chris

Did a little research... industry standard requirements for transfer rates are:
HDV 720 30p ......... 19.2 Mbps
DV50.................... 50.0 Mbps
DV25.................... 25.0 Mbps

Formats beyond these require faster drives, so if we expect realtime upconverting to the external drive in alternate formats, the XiMeta external isn't appropriate. The drive is also too slow for realtime 8 or 10 bit in 4:2:2 colorspace.

If we are transcoding to CFHD (CineForm codec on Vegas), we need 2 raided XiMeta drives connected to a gigabit router to achieve throughput sufficient for realtime encoding at the published rate of nearly 100Mbps... of course, we'll need a gigabit connection from the computer to the router as well. Now with all this throughput, the computer's ability to process at this speed comes into question. So does our need of realtime encoding. My cheap, single XiMeta drive shouldn't bottleneck until we reach about 64% realtime. I can be pretty happy with that.

Resources:

www.adobe.com
www.hdv-info.org
www.cineform.com
www.hdtvexpert.com

To my knowledge, we have yet to see anyone performing realtime upconversions with HD1 video. We should see some testing to determine the conversion bottleneck. I'm of the opinion it's the lack of a dedicated drive. Constant seeking from read/write operations to the same device will slow any single IDE or SATA system to a crawl. So will Windows. My Linux bootdisc allows my Centrino 1.4 to play native HD1 video at between 62% and 70% load... the same video skips on Windows and pegs my processor at 100%. Anyone know of good conversion software for Linux? ;)

I finally got around to editing an actual (non-test) video with the Mac Mini, and was VERY pleasantly surprised. The HD1 clips, shot in the SHQ setting, totalled about a half an hour. I neglected to time the upload from the chip to the Mac, but I think that it was less than an hour.

iMovie seems to make duplicates of the clips, rather than shortcuts, so that took a little while too, but it didn't seem long (I'll time it with the next video).

What really amazed me was that the render from the 22 minute timeline to Quicktime HD 720P was also less than an hour! Rendering DV to MPEG2 in Vegas would have taken longer, let alone HD. I wasn't entirely happy with some of my editing decisions, and as mentioned before, with a render time of an hour, I'm perfectly willing to go back and do it over.

The file was made using a codec called Integer (Little Endian) Apple Intermediate, and appears indistinguishable from the original. The file size is 6.3 GB; perhaps I will explore conversion to H.264 to save space.

It certainly is a new experience to work with a computer monitor that looks great and is five feet across (my HDTV).

XiMeta Netdisk
 

Hi Chris,

I emailed ZiMeta and asked about gigabit ethernet. Their response follows:

"Thanks for your inquiry; however the current Netdisk does not take
advantage of a Gigabit Network. Ximeta is planning on release the Gigabit
Netdisk in about 2 month's time, please stay tuned to our website for more
details when available."

I am glad to hear that!

Good to hear Maury, perhaps those new enclosures will do the trick. What I was suggesting was link aggrigation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_aggregation. Not much point to in now though; they appear to have a better solution in the works.

Thanks for letting us know Gb connections are on the way!

i'm trying really hard to understand what this thread is about.

you are advocating spending $800 just to transcode footage into some weird format? why not get a hardware card to plug into your pc?

have you explored the nvidia hardware acceleration for encoding?

ultimately, re-encoding footage is the wrong approach anyway... you want a solution that will allow you to edit the footage in it's native format.

Dan: I'm not sure whether your question was directed to me, having started the thread, or to others who have joined in and expanded the discussion.

For me, the initial question was what to do with edited HD1 videos, since I could edit from the original in Vegas. The presentation devices that I found (e.g. TViX, Kiss DP-600) seemed complicated, cost quite a bit, and were currently unavailable.

The Intel-based Mac Mini seemed worth a try, and worked out really well. Editing on it was an unexpected benefit, not only because it was so fast, but also because I was seeing the clips on the same HDTV where the video would ultimately be played.

I am delighted with the results. I would only explore converting to another format if the quality was not noticeably degraded, and if the converted format took up significantly less storage space.

Now I am eagerly awaiting a version of Photoshop that will run natively on the Intel based Mini!

my point is that re-encoding all of the footage before it can be edited is not good for picture quality... if you had spent $800 and didn't have to re-render everything, i guess that it would be an option.

you need a solution where you can drop the native mpeg4 footage from the sanyo onto a timeline, and edit it directly.

I do drop the original footage directly into the timeline and edit, both in Vegas and in iMovie. The difference has been in rendering to an HD format that can be presented on an HDTV after editing.

you can play native mpeg4 footage out to an hdtv by plugging the output of your pc video card into the hdtv... it's known as a media center; for instance, microsoft has a version of winxp designed to record ota footage, and play it back thru an hdtv.

are you saying that you can bring the sanyo mpeg4 native footage into vegas, and play it back without rendering anything? you can make simple cuts-only edits, then export the native mpeg4 off of the timeline without any rendering at all? anything else is bad for picture quality.

You can import the MP4 to Vegas and edit in the normal fashion. So far, Vegas only offers WMV9 or HDV as High Def rendering options, and they take forever.

I import MP4 into iMovie and render as Quicktime HD. I see absolutely no loss in quality on a 60 inch Sony HDTV and the process is surprisingly fast.

The only remaining questions for me are whether more sophisticated editing will require Final Cut, and whether the edited video could be converted to a less space intensive format, such as H.264, without significant loss of quality.

i'm still trying to figure out if vegas will edit the native sanyo mpeg4 footage... "normal fashion" doesn't help.

beyond that, what codec does quicktime hd use?

Cutting the HD1's MP4 files in Vegas 6.0d is very efficient and the result high in quality.

This is due in part to the HDV Intermediate option, which was presumably introduced to speed up Mpeg2 editing of HDV footage. This can be used for the HD1's MP4 files - when you're rendering you can conform the original MP4 files.

Sorry, don't know how to export without rendering.

seeing the footage
 

Hello Peter,

I am in Berkeley, and would like to see your footage if that is possible. I could pay a small fee to do so.

Thanks,

Jake R.

Another great thing about Peter's set-up which may interest others wondering how to post with the HD1, is that because it's a 2006 Mac Mini, he would be able to run Windows XP equally fast (some say faster) than on a PC.

Although emulation programs have existed for years, new breakthroughs are possible because of the Intel chips in new Macs.

They haven't got it perfected yet, but they will soon.

My next computer will be a Mac that also runs Windows Vista.

This isn't because I have a HD1 - I always preferred Macs but needed Windows. Now I can have both!

See here for more details:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/13/te...pc&oref=slogin

LMFAO ! the new Mac (macintel) ARE PC ! they use intel processor (Core Solo or Duo, codename Yonah, architecture from the Pentium M..), pci-express bus and ATI graphics processor.... It's the same, you could build it yourself. You can also install Mac Os X on a PC now (with the right hardware inside...)

thank you... it sounds like vegas will not edit the native mpeg4 files from the sanyo, and neither will any mac program, for that matter.

as for the mac dual-boot option... i've seen some negative press about how well it works, perhaps they will get it ironed out at some point.

bootitng works really well for dual-boot situations.

"are you saying that you can bring the sanyo mpeg4 native footage into vegas, and play it back without rendering anything? you can make simple cuts-only edits, then export the native mpeg4 off of the timeline without any rendering at all? anything else is bad for picture quality."

Dan, Just to clarify - you're not suggesting that rendering is always bad for picture quality, are you? I mean, there's such a thing a rendering without quality loss. Rendering doesn't, by definition, mean processing. It can also describe rearranging.

For instance, when I used MPEG EDIT STUDIO PRO 1.0 with the JVC cam, it was a native Mpeg2 editor. As long as you only made cuts, and didn't do any effects or anything, there was no quality loss when you rendered. I know this because I tested it over 13 re-renders.

Obviously Vegas is a different thing, but I just wasn't 100% clear what you meant about rendering and exporting.

very basic help for a very newbie
 

I know I'm jumping in way over my head here, but I'm hoping that one of you can give me some very basic info on editing HD video I've shot w/ my neat new Sanyo. Maybe instead of having to take time to school me on the basics, you can direct me to an appropriate info source. I'm starting at square one here. For now, I just want to be able to cut and paste the pretty videos I've shot of my new baby girl and email them out to friends and family in a format that anyone can view w/ basic versions of WM/Quicktime/Real. I need add'l software to do that, right? (I told you I'm starting w/ zero knowledge here.) From there, I'm looking forward to getting into more advanced stuff in the near future.

I get the sense from the postings I've read that my choices are Vegas (expensive!) or a new Mac w/ IMovie (even more expensive!) Problem is I already have 5 PCs in the house and my wife will kill me if I buy another machine - as much as I'd like to try a Mac.

Is there a less expensive option for me? I found Squared5 (http://www.squared5.com/). Too good to be true? Avid Liquid might be an option too (http://www.avid.com/products/liquid/) but not cheap.

Also, it sounds like I have to "render" video in order to edit it. Don't know much about that. Sure I'll find out. But it sounds like rendering using Vegas takes forever. Is that really a problem? Is it really 32 x length of the video clip(s)? Is that an important reason why folks seem to prefer Mac?

So my questions are: 1. where can I go to get a basic "how to" on editing HD video? 2. assuming I need 3rd party software, am I right that my choices are Vegas and IMovie? and 3. is Vegas really exponentially slower?

Thanks in advance for the help and thanks for slowing things down for me.

Joe,

For the most basic use, you can use the Ulead Movie factory that came with your Sanyo. You can edit clips and burn to dvd. You can also upload or email clips using the free upload services.

I'm also new to video editing, but I used the included software for a very rudimentary dvd compilation of my clips with minimal editing ( connecting clips, changing start/end points of clips, etc.). I had approximately 25 clips and 48 minutes of HD video plus slide show images. Rendering took a little over 1.5 hours, so about a 3X rendering time.

I ordered Vegas Movie Studio DVD + platinum yesterday to contine my path on the learning curve of video editing. Cost is less than $100US. It doesn't have all the features of Vegas 6, but it does handle HDV.

thanks
 

Wayne,

thanks for the reply. I didn't realize the included software has editing capabilities. And thanks for the tip on the less expensive version of Vegas. Good luck with that.

As noted above, I have been very pleased with the results of editing HD1 footage on the Intel-based dual core Mac Mini. The only problem has been the resultant file size, which in Quicktime HD is about five times the original Sanyo footage.

I have been experimenting with converting or rendering the edited footage into H.264. Using the original resolution and a transfer rate of 9Mb, like the original, has produced very good looking images at approximately the original file size. The advantage is not only less demands on storage, but also that the edited video can be stored or backed up on a DVD if it is under an hour in length, i.e. the same as SD, but at much better quality.

I have achieved the best results when the H.264 is in the Quicktime (.mov) format. I have also tried H.264 in MP4, but there were subtle differences from the original in brightness and contrast. I have no idea why that should be so, since we are talking about the "envelope".

Pleased as I am with the results, there is a downside. The process takes something like 20 times the running time of the video, at least on my machine, which is the 1.6 Ghz dual core Mini with 2Gb of RAM.

in that scenario, there is nothing to be rendered, so i'm not sure what you are referring to?

the workflow you described there is just what's needed for the sanyo mpeg4 footage.

Dan,

Me: "As long as you only made cuts, and didn't do any effects or anything, there was no quality loss when you rendered."

You: "in that scenario, there is nothing to be rendered, so i'm not sure what you are referring to?"

Right, we have different definitons of rendering.

If I take 7 shots, edit them how I like in a timeline and then select an option that will create a copy in which the shots are forged together - I call this latter stage 'rendering'.

You may use the term differently, more purely some might say, but it's principle is quite intact in my usage and in the usage of many who take the same route.

It has effectively come to mean when you have finished decision-making and wish to create a subsequent version with those decisions enshrined.

You render.

Of course, I now understand your earlier question more clearly.

You: "are you saying that you can bring the sanyo mpeg4 native footage into vegas, and play it back without rendering anything? you can make simple cuts-only edits, then export the native mpeg4 off of the timeline without any rendering at all? anything else is bad for picture quality."

I just gave this a try for you and sadly wasn't able to export.

Furthermore, I do see a quality loss when I render, unlike with the KDDI software I referred to.

So, whatever about the terminology, we can agree there is a slight loss of quality, which is certainly unsatisfactory in the long run.

Graham

I think HD-1 footage is a "short run" kind of video ;). Keep in mind that we're talking about mpeg4 for the hobbiest here--not archival footage that may be re-edited several times. A slight loss of quality, possibly not even visible, is not a problem for most HD-1 users. Even if the loss of quality is visible, it may not be objectionable. I can often detect defects when single stepping through frames that I could never see at 30 fps!

MPEG4 "native" editing is not yet available and truely native editing probably never will be available, due to the nature of mpeg4 compression. It's a bit like trying to edit a text file that's been compressed into a zip archive--you can't just change one word in a zip file! You must decompress the file, change the word, and recompress to a new archive. However, zip file compression is losssless. MPEG4 is lossy. Therein lies the rub!

However, we can cut to the nearest keyframe so one possible method to maximize quality is to use an ap like Quicktime or MPEG Streamclip to trim clips in the native mp4 or mov (similar to mp4) format and container. In fact, transitions could be cut and processed separately so that the bulk of the video remains unscathed. After processing and rendering the transitions with fancy iMove HD or Final Cut effects, everything could be appended back to the final video. MPEG Streamclip provides a jump to nearest keyframe function. You can preview it and move the mark point, if necessary. Quicktime provides no preview of the keyframe it selected. It appears the HD-1 uses 1 sec as the maximum keyframe interval. Of course, when you use a tool like iMove HD or Final Cut which use the Apple Intermediate codec, you don't have to worry about keyframes, but even simply trimming of clips results in a lossy rendering and recompression, which is what concerns Graham here.

I think the new Intel Mac mini is a great platform for HD-1 users! I haven't tried it, but I suspect even the single core "Solo" model could play HD1 output with VLC or mplayer. It would take longer than the core duo to do any fancy processing beyond simple video file trimming, but the output would be the same, of course. I think spending approximately the same amount of money on an editing platform as the camera is not a bad rule of thumb. My brother in law is a professional cameraman, producer and editor. Gee, I think his editing workstation cost him about $10k--about the same as one of his cams!

if the editor can export it without rendering, it is indeed a copy of the original footage, minus a few frames perhaps :-)

calin is on the right track, because if you can make your cuts on keyframes, there is no rendering necessary, and therefore no loss in quality... if you make your cuts between keyframes, the only thing you'll have to render is the area between the keyframes, which is pretty insignificant.

the intel mac mini is a pc, which means that you'll be able to get similar or better horsepower for the same $$$ by shopping at any good white-box retailer of pc parts... fry's(outpost.com) comes to mind... the only reason to do it with a mac mini is to get osx, or perhaps that specific form factor.

where you get hurt doing it at a place like fry's is buying the operating system software... the cheapest i've seen a full version of winxp home is maybe $82 plus tax?

on the other hand, if you hang around forums like fatwallet.com, you'll see that fry's currently has rebates that give you a free quality power supply and a free case, which does tend to make up for that $82 purchase of winxp :-)

try doing that with a mac mini.

I agree. I have many computers at home running Windows, OS X, and Linux. OS X is what makes a Mac a "Mac"--at least to me. I haven't done much more than server aps on my Linux systems. Perhaps Linux is a way to avoid the M$ "tax" on DIY systems.

BTW, if the Intel Mac mini is a pc, so are the older G4 minis. Running OS X, my G4 mini is indistinguishable from the new Intel minis from a usage standpoint-- except for speed differences in various aps.

"if the Intel Mac mini is a pc, so are the older G4 minis. Running OS X, my G4 mini is indistinguishable from the new Intel minis from a usage standpoint-- except for speed differences in various aps."

I thought the older minis didn't have an Intel chip - which according to NY Times is apparently required to run these new XP facilitators, if not the old simulators.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/13/te...BqHDQtKU4avxOg

Well PC has split into being used TWO ways

PC as in Windows Computers Intel/AMD and PC as Personal Computer (the latter being the correct usage)

so to the former its now a PC running Mac OS to the latter it is and always has been a PC :-)

I prefer windows for a simple reason. it works fine and it encompasses over 90% of the market and therfore workforce

Some other reasons. Mac machines are insanely overpriced. I can build twice the machine for 1/5th the cost of a Mac.

Windows is stable enough for me. I have XP installes that are over 2 years old with no reinstalls needed and no crashes thus far.

I also dont get viruses. that just takes smart computer usage.

Mac encompases just over 2% of the userbase. THIS is why macs can run windows and access windows files and windows machines do not and do not need to.

OSX is beautiful and works well its just too nich and too expensive. now if they sold a version that I could run on AN Intel/AMD hardware I might give it a shot.

Chris Taylor
http://www.nerys.com

I mentionned that new Macs can run XP simply so that anyone thinking of mimicking Peter's set-up but worried about leaving XP behind would realise it's no longer a problem.

But yes, I've always been intrigued by the Windows vs. Mac debate.

Graham,

Talking about editing... can you make a recomendation for what you would consider the best output (Render) setting for 720P in Vegas..?


Bo

www.bophoto.com/HDV

WM9 is the only HD one I think.

Recently I've been using Quicktime Pro, which seems easier for simple cutting.

If you make simple cuts or trims using Quicktime Pro it outputs them as mov. files and there seems to be no quality loss - whereas if you output as MP4 there is huge quality loss...