JVC Long GOP Solution for slow edit and color grade?? at DVinfo.net

Michael Totten · April 28th, 2006, 10:06 AM

I have three major concerns with the codec/compression of HDV.

1. Lack of COLOR (compared to DVCPRO). Is there any way to fix this?
Uprezz to DVCPROHD or HDCAM then color grade?

2. I hear that it's PAINFULLY SLOW to edit. Long render times ect... This is almost a dealbreaker alone. Is there a fix? Uprezz?

3. I understand the codec falls apart in post when color grading or manipulating the image. How is this fixed?

My long winded question is:
I'm wondering JVC-HD100U footage was uprezzed to DVCPROHD and then ingested in FCP if that would fix both the slowness of working with HDV and the image degradation when color graded?

David Parks · April 28th, 2006, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Totten

I have three major concerns with the codec/compression of HDV.

1. Lack of COLOR (compared to DVCPRO). Is there any way to fix this?
Uprezz to DVCPROHD or HDCAM then color grade?

2. I hear that it's PAINFULLY SLOW to edit. Long render times ect... This is almost a dealbreaker alone. Is there a fix? Uprezz?

3. I understand the codec falls apart in post when color grading or manipulating the image. How is this fixed?

My long winded question is:
I'm wondering JVC-HD100U footage was uprezzed to DVCPROHD and then ingested in FCP if that would fix both the slowness of working with HDV and the image degradation when color graded?

There are always concerns with any compression codec. Will it degrade color or introduce more artifacts.
IMO:

1. HDV being 4:1:1 or 4:2:0 does reduce color and requires some color correction. But it is 1280x720 (HDV1)and DVCPro codec is 960x720 4:2:2 (I believe) , so there is a possible tradeoff in resolution going to DVCProHD.

HDV can be slow to edit especially if you don't have a dual proc computer, but I personally haven't had an issue with the image falling apart in post or with color correction.

EDIT: Let me say that Mark is right HD 100 has great color reproduction, it's not that the H 100 lacks color or is by no means muted in color reproduction. Color correction is a part of my workflow whether it's a production in HDV HD CAM or 16mm/35/mm film. To me it's like audio mixing/sweetning. Compared to 4:2:2 analog Betacam SP, there seems to be a little less color in HDV at first to my eyes. But Betacam SP looks a whole lot noisier and lower rez. Not even fair comparison.

I'm personally a not a fan of shooting in one format, bumping to another format. If you have the money to bump to HD CAM via HD SDI, sure it's going to work better/smoother than an HDV workflow and probably look better.

I'm not a codec expert like Steve Mullin and some of the other guys in this forum, but I wouldn't shoot HDV and transfer to DVCProHD

I would pick one or the other and stay within that framework.

Mark Silva · April 28th, 2006, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Totten

I have three major concerns with the codec/compression of HDV.

1. Lack of COLOR (compared to DVCPRO). Is there any way to fix this?
Uprezz to DVCPROHD or HDCAM then color grade?

2. I hear that it's PAINFULLY SLOW to edit. Long render times ect... This is almost a dealbreaker alone. Is there a fix? Uprezz?

3. I understand the codec falls apart in post when color grading or manipulating the image. How is this fixed?

My long winded question is:
I'm wondering JVC-HD100U footage was uprezzed to DVCPROHD and then ingested in FCP if that would fix both the slowness of working with HDV and the image degradation when color graded?

I'm not aware of any lack of color problem on the HD100 footage really unless your referencing the difference in color space, 4:2:2 vs 4:2:0. I can assure you that a properly configured and operated HD100 is quite capable of vivid color. :)

No need to downrez to dvcprohd and I do mean downrez since its 720 format is 960x720 and not the full raster 1280x720 that the HD100 produces.

Painfully slow to edit? I've heard that as well. I capture HDV via firewire to a Quad G5 system. I can scrub the timeline all day long. The G5 Quad plays it without any distress as if it were DV footage. Do all the editing color correction....what have you, then nest that timeline into a 10-bit uncompressed one, then render that. The picture is glorious.

Michael Totten · April 28th, 2006, 10:47 PM

[QUOTE=Mark Silva]I'm not aware of any lack of color problem on the HD100 footage really unless your referencing the difference in color space, 4:2:2 vs 4:2:0. I can assure you that a properly configured and operated HD100 is quite capable of vivid color. :)

No need to downrez to dvcprohd and I do mean downrez since its 720 format is 960x720 and not the full raster 1280x720 that the HD100 produces.

Yes I was refering to the color space ... sorry that was a bit unclear.
Have you ever seen HDV footage projected on a huge screen? I saw a couple different flavors of HDV projected and then the HVX.... the difference wasn't huge, but it was noticeable for sure. I'd like to find a way around that.
What options are there?

You mentioned nesting in a 10bit uncompressed timeline. What exactly does that do? How does it improve the image?

Cheers,
Michael

Mark Silva · April 29th, 2006, 04:29 PM

I have not personally seen HDV footage projected.

I have seen HVX footage, Sony HDV and JVC HDV.

Sony is not so good IMO during any kind of movement. Everyone informed is aware of it.

The JVC footage holds up VERY well. I can't find any mpeg artifacts on my footage. I'd have to freeze frame and nitpick with my face real close to the monitor to find it if any. You would likely see chromatic abberation (stock lense zoomed beyond 75%) before you'd see HDV mpeg artifacts on JVC footage.

The JVC and HVX are VERY close in my opinion.

technically the JVC is full rez (no subsampling) 1280x720 with a changeable lense.

The HVX is 960x540 with sub sampling and a non removeable lense.

But those are just numbers. perhaps you need a demonstration yourself to decide. But just a point....the JVC is no slouch. :)

having the ONLY compression step be the HDV shooting is extremely important. nesting your timeline in 10-bit uncompressed will insure that your final edit will look as good as it possibly could with no compromise except the afore mentioned first step in shooting it in HDV.

I would never personally see any of my projects go back to an HDV tape. We remain uncompressed beyond camera shooting to maintain the best possible quality.

April 28th, 2006, 10:06 AM	#1
Michael Totten Regular Crew Join Date: May 2005 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 38	JVC Long GOP Solution for slow edit and color grade?? I have three major concerns with the codec/compression of HDV. 1. Lack of COLOR (compared to DVCPRO). Is there any way to fix this? Uprezz to DVCPROHD or HDCAM then color grade? 2. I hear that it's PAINFULLY SLOW to edit. Long render times ect... This is almost a dealbreaker alone. Is there a fix? Uprezz? 3. I understand the codec falls apart in post when color grading or manipulating the image. How is this fixed? My long winded question is: I'm wondering JVC-HD100U footage was uprezzed to DVCPROHD and then ingested in FCP if that would fix both the slowness of working with HDV and the image degradation when color graded?

April 28th, 2006, 10:47 PM	#4
Michael Totten Regular Crew Join Date: May 2005 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 38	[QUOTE=Mark Silva]I'm not aware of any lack of color problem on the HD100 footage really unless your referencing the difference in color space, 4:2:2 vs 4:2:0. I can assure you that a properly configured and operated HD100 is quite capable of vivid color. :) No need to downrez to dvcprohd and I do mean downrez since its 720 format is 960x720 and not the full raster 1280x720 that the HD100 produces. Yes I was refering to the color space ... sorry that was a bit unclear. Have you ever seen HDV footage projected on a huge screen? I saw a couple different flavors of HDV projected and then the HVX.... the difference wasn't huge, but it was noticeable for sure. I'd like to find a way around that. What options are there? You mentioned nesting in a 10bit uncompressed timeline. What exactly does that do? How does it improve the image? Cheers, Michael

April 29th, 2006, 04:29 PM	#5
Mark Silva Major Player Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Pacific NW Posts: 431	I have not personally seen HDV footage projected. I have seen HVX footage, Sony HDV and JVC HDV. Sony is not so good IMO during any kind of movement. Everyone informed is aware of it. The JVC footage holds up VERY well. I can't find any mpeg artifacts on my footage. I'd have to freeze frame and nitpick with my face real close to the monitor to find it if any. You would likely see chromatic abberation (stock lense zoomed beyond 75%) before you'd see HDV mpeg artifacts on JVC footage. The JVC and HVX are VERY close in my opinion. technically the JVC is full rez (no subsampling) 1280x720 with a changeable lense. The HVX is 960x540 with sub sampling and a non removeable lense. But those are just numbers. perhaps you need a demonstration yourself to decide. But just a point....the JVC is no slouch. :) having the ONLY compression step be the HDV shooting is extremely important. nesting your timeline in 10-bit uncompressed will insure that your final edit will look as good as it possibly could with no compromise except the afore mentioned first step in shooting it in HDV. I would never personally see any of my projects go back to an HDV tape. We remain uncompressed beyond camera shooting to maintain the best possible quality.