Adobe pp2.0

[Greg Corke]

I See Adobe pp 2.0 edits natively without any loss using codec, anyone tried this with JVC HD100 and does it support 24p? I know 1.5 did this as well a few months back but it seems pc power has come along a bit since then to cope with the larger information involved with native editing.

Cheers Greg C

[Miltos Pilalitos]

Originally Posted by Greg Corke

I See Adobe pp 2.0 edits natively without any loss using codec, anyone tried this with JVC HD100 and does it support 24p? I know 1.5 did this as well a few months back but it seems pc power has come along a bit since then to cope with the larger information involved with native editing.

Cheers Greg C

Adobe PPro2 does have loss. It clips Superblack and Superwhite information out of your footage. With a rough calculation i estimate that you are losing around 10%-15% of your image's information.

It does exactly the same with DV footage.

Maybe the reason is the way PPro2 works internaly and how it converts YUV information to RGB.

I contacted Adobe about this 'problem' but i was suggested to use Cineform.

I am using Vegas now. If you are using an older computer, Vegas is not as smooth in editing HDV as PPro2 but it keeps all the footage's information.

[Greg Corke]

Thanks Miltos,

Strange that adobe suggested cineform as surely this creates a slight loss of info also. Furthermore I thought the whole idea of native editing was to cut this out or have I misunderstood.


Regards Greg

[Miltos Pilalitos]

Originally Posted by Greg Corke

Thanks Miltos,

Strange that adobe suggested cineform as surely this creates a slight loss of info also. Furthermore I thought the whole idea of native editing was to cut this out or have I misunderstood.


Regards Greg

Well,

I guess there are hidden meanings in words like "native" or "visualy perfect" :-)

The Superwhites and Superblacks are not supposed to be used in broadcast so Adobe decided for us that we don't need them but i can easily prove how essential they are in Colour Correction or if your work is going to end up on film.

And just to be clear, i have nothing against Adobe. I love how PPRro2 works and i find it's workflow 'easier' than Vegas'. It's also the first editing software i learned and i have a kind of affection for it, but the clipping is unacceptable for me.

Maybe other editing software do similar 'hidden' things to our footage. I only had the chance to use Ppro and Vegas so someone else might help on that!

[Paolo Ciccone]

Originally Posted by Greg Corke

Furthermore I thought the whole idea of native editing was to cut this out or have I misunderstood.

Greg.
Keep in mind that native HDV editing is, generally speaking, a bad idea. It's imporessive that companies like Adobe and Apple offer this capability but a GOP-based codec is not designed for editing. What the software does, behind the scenes, is to decompress and recompress a lot of frames in order to allow you to do fram-accurate cuts in the middle of a GOP. While this can be convenient for short videos, it defintely pays off to convert your footage to a better codec and then continue from there with CC, effects, etc.
The time to perform these operations will be shorter and the overall quality of the result will improve.
This, again, is the nature of the codec and is not a consequence of using a given NLE.

[Jonathan Nelson]

Does FCP administer any clipping?

[Marc Colemont]

The Codec from Cineform does make a big difference during editing compared with native editing. That's why the Cineform converts the original m2t file in their own format to preserve the quality after multiple generations.
My backup files of projects are always Cineform. I only convert back to m2t to store on tape.
Here is also an article on the webpage of Cineform were they compare Cineform to native editing:
http://www.cineform.com/technology/H...tyAnalysis.htm

[Panos Bournias]

I read very often about the poor editing qualities of HDV even though all the NLE advertise that they can handle native HDV etc.
I use Avid Xpress Pro 5,5,1.
We capture and cut HDV 720p 30fr/sec, as 24 25 are not supported yet.
The workflow has no problems at all, we can run 4 layers of HDV plus titles and effects (Titles in DnxHD 110 codec-resolution) in real time without a mojo. The effects rendering is relatively fast, even faster than DV sometimes and the export to M2t is about 2,5 X realtime.
I am waiting for a macbook pro next month w/ FCP and I hope that will have same performance.
In my opinion there is no point compresing and recompresing HDV.
I think that the best way to keep it clean from artifacts, color loss etc. it is to edit it natively and export it back to tape without any further manipulations. Avid also suggests to transcode HDV into an DnxHD codec and edit using this 1 frame based format.
I tried it and I realized that the trascode process is tooooo long without any benefits on the final editing experience. Same with DVCPro HD.

[Antony Michael Wilson]

If you're happy editing in native HDV, that's great because it makes life very simple and I'm glad that there are systems out there that make this possible. However, technically speaking, HDV is far from ideal for editing. As many people on here have already pointed out at some stage, this is because it puts a high load on the system (Mpeg2/IBP and all that) and because it is extremely lossy on re-compression. Cineform and other intermediate codecs such as Canopus HQ and Avid's DNx try to address this issue. As an Avid user, I do not have extensive experience dealing with the first two but I must say that the difference between finishing with DNx and native HDV is very clear to my eyes, at least. Of course, whether or not a native HDV post process is adequate is entirely down to the demands of any particular job but I would argue that you'll get far better results working in DNx for the finishing process and that transcoding to DNx is well worth the wait and effort in most cases. Of course, there are simple and effective methods on all serious NLE systems to limit the amount of transcoding/conforming necessary for longform projects or those with high shooting ratios.

[Panos Bournias]

Hi Antony, as an Avid user you know that for HDV 720p we get only the DNxHD 110 that is supposed to be if not worst... equal to HDV 720p.
Even MC provides only this resolution for HDV 720p projects.
So to tell you the truth, I do not see any difference with my eyes.
The only difference is that I have to wait long hours for the transcoding.
Avid is supposed to use the splice tech that is processing faster the gop of HDV for rendering and previewing purposes.
For me again editing native HDV is the best way to go.
I have experienced loss in quality using both Cineform w/ APPr and Canopus AVI HQ.
Maybe there are ways to control those codecs that I ignore but native looks so easy and the footage makes no different from capture to final export to tape.

[Paolo Ciccone]

Originally Posted by Panos Bournias

In my opinion there is no point compresing and recompresing HDV.
I think that the best way to keep it clean from artifacts, color loss etc. it is to edit it natively and export it back to tape without any further manipulations.

Panos, because of its nature, when you edit in HDV you end up recompressing the footage. There is not escape from it. If you apply a cut in the middle of a GOP, and this is going to be the most likely case, the NLE has to generate new GOPs whenever it needs to render the footage. Some effects/filter can be applied in real-time but whenever that is not possible, new GOPs have to be created and this means that the NLE will uncompress the HDV footage and then re-compress it with a resulting quality loss. Now, if your footage is simple and short this is unlikely to happen but if you apply grading and/or special effects, the recompression will be unavoidable.
My personal, totally personal interpretation of this feature is that HDV native editing is really meant for consumer-grade HD cameras and to give the occasional editor the chance to edit simple videos without being overwhelmed with technical details.
For complex editing work is best to stay away from it.

[David Scattergood]

This is a little above my head at the moment, but say FCP version 5.1.2 delivers native 25p editing for example am I still best following one of workflows/work arounds that have been posted on these boards?
Majority of work I will be doing is HDV 25p short documentaries/films/music promo's and corporate vids...nothing too long at this stage.

[Jack Walker]

Originally Posted by Paolo Ciccone

My personal, totally personal interpretation of this feature is that HDV native editing is really meant for consumer-grade HD cameras and to give the occasional editor the chance to edit simple videos without being overwhelmed with technical details.
For complex editing work is best to stay away from it.

Does this put Avid Liquid in the consumer camp then?

I have Liquid, but only have used it for DV. Apparently with HDV you can have the frames render in an uncompressed format However, I'm not sure it's possible to get the video out of Liquid in an uncompressed format that other programs can read.

[Paolo Ciccone]

Originally Posted by David Scattergood

This is a little above my head at the moment, but say FCP version 5.1.2 delivers native 25p editing for example am I still best following one of workflows/work arounds that have been posted on these boards?

It has nothing to do with the frame rate. And yes, you can edit directly in HDV, it's your call. It's a matetr of "best practices", not a technical requirement.

Think in this way, you drop a clip in the timeline, the clip starts and there is a GOP: 1 frame is captured complete and 5 frames are stored as the difference between the previous frame. You apply a cut on the 3rd frame and discard the previous two. How does the NLE show frame 3, 4, 5, and 6 if the starting point has been removed? Of course, since a cut is just a pointer, the program can "rewind", find the reference point and then compute the following frames. Seems convoluted? It is, but this is exactly what happenes when editing a codec with temporal compression. Now, take this clip and imagine that you want to export it as a QuickTime movie using the original encoding: HDV. After all you think: "If I don't transcode, I don't loose image quality". That would be the case with a codec that stores all your footage as discreet frames. The frames would be simply "dumped" in to the new file. With HDV you have to rebuild a new GOP, because you just made a cut in the middle of one and discarded some frames. So, the NLE has to "rewind" again, compute the frames that you have in the sequence and then re-compress them in order to create a brand new GOP in the file. This time frame 3 will be the reference frame and frame 4,5,6, plus 2 frames from the following GOP will be stored in the file. I'm oversimplyfing here but you get the gist of it.
Moral of the story, you end up with a recompressed, re-encoded file, even when you don't change codec in export.
Now, take this scenario and apply it for effects, transitions etc. Not a pretty picture. The time saved in avoiding a conversion to, say, Black Magic 4:2:2 10 bit or AIC, is paid down the line, when the footage is spread across hundreds of cuts and several transitions, filters etc. And I'm not even considering chromakey work. This is for your everyday, 30 minute interview or similar footage.

Hope this helps.

[Antony Michael Wilson]

This is sound advice/information from Paolo. There is a fundamental misconception in the idea that editing native HDV is the best solution for maximising image quality. Native HDV support is great for simplicity of workflow and for ingest of material but it is most certainly not ideal for manipulation of images in post. Of course, decompressing to an uncompressed codec and carrying out all finishing work uncompressed would yield the best results but most people do not have this option due to system and drive speed. Intermediate codecs such as those discussed - depending on the quality of their implementation - will deliver a good compromise.

For any Avid users out there, DNx 110 should certainly give you better results on re-compression than native HDV. So, if you're doing a lot of colour correction, compositing or other post manipulation, you will most certainly see the difference. If your system is fast enough to work well in native HDV it is fast enough to transcode to DNx efficiently if you consolidate and transcode (or decompose offline SD, conform and transcode) for finishing.

It's all about what is necessary, really. If you're happy working native HDV and it gives you what you need without the hassle of transcoding or re-capturing then why worry? It is, however, simply incorrect and misleading to suggest that native HDV is the ideal solution for best image quality as Paolo has so thoroughly explained.