Confused over what mode to record in
 

I am using my FX1000 for weddings. I have read many posts about settings and I am more confused than before. I produce my video in Adobe Premiere and master the disc with Adobe Encore. It seems that if I record or render out in progressive mode it looks a little choppy but I may be using the wrong combination. With so many choices in recording modes & rendering options it's hard to know what works the best. Any advice would be appreciated.

In short, record in 60i SD 16:9. Or record in HD if your computer/NLE can handle the m2t files.

Hi Allen,

I have done many test with 60i, 30p and 24p and I have found I prefer 30p for weddings, but that's me. I would suggest you do your own testing. Just make sure if you shoot progressive, render progressive and if you shoot interlaced and render progressive, you should apply a deinterlace filter to the footage first.

That's right, I forgot about you Tim, and your 30p. Can you sum up how that works out again? I remember you discussing it, and I was going to try it and I never did.

Jeff you forgot about me.....my feelings are hurt. :-)

You record in 30p the same as you would 60i. I always deinterlaced the VX's SD 60i footage to knock that evening news look off, with 30p the footage looks better and saves a step in post.

So when you say you are recording in 30p, you are not recording in HiDef just normal DV in progressive mode. If that is the case what settings do you use when you render out your video? When you record in 1080i, don't you get a better picture even when you are creating standard DVDs?

No, on the FX1000 the 30p mode is just as "HD" as 60i. Page 66 of your manual.

It's not actually recorded to tape as 30p, though, but that doesn't affect resolution.

Most people do report that recording in HDV and then downconverting gives you a better picture than recording in SD/DV mode. But this varies by workflow and personal preference. Opinions vary a lot, but the general consensus is, if you have the horsepower in your PC to make HDV editing a breeze, do everything in HDV and then downconvert at the last second when you make your DVDs. If your PC is lacking in any of the variables necessary for smooth HDV editing (processor speed, memory or HDD space) you should edit in DV, which you can do by shooting DV in the first place or, better, downconverting upon capture from the cam.

Many people use HDV cams for shooting DV, but I've never been able to figure out any advantage of that over downconverting in the cam. But maybe that's because I'm dense. Seems to me there's no downside to having an HDV original even if you aren't using that capability right now. Again, maybe I'm missing something -- it wouldn't be the first time.

Adam
I have been so far recording in DV mode, editing in DV and producing excellent DVDs. Now if what you are saying is true, then I should record in HDV and downconvert in the cam. But I can't understand the technical issue of this. Why should it be better quality?

Stelios

So if 1080i is the same as 30p, should I render the video in progressive?

Stelios, I have read that for best quality downconversion that is should not be done in-camera, but in post; but I cannot back that up with facts. Someone said the downcoversion in camera is not as good as it would be in post.

I record in HD and then render out to 16:9 SD, but I do it only for promotional reasons. I tell my customers I record in HD. So far I've not done a careful comparison, but I don't imagine the quality is that much better in the end, really. If we need to zoom in on an image during post and are editing in HD, then the resulting image in that case would probably be better, so editing in HD would give some added flexibility.

Others say we should keep the HD for offering customers the options of an HD product later, which is not a bad idea, but I haven't figured how I would archive it in that case. Possilby print to tape? I've never used that feature and don't know excactly how that works.

Jeff, that sounds like a good idea in theory because you have the tape backup (if that’s in your normal workflow). If I were to ingest the footage using my tape via fire wire it would be no problem to bring it back in later. Although, the whole reason for the CF card is to be able bring the footage in quicker and alleviating wear and tear on your camera by using it as a deck. That creates a problem for me because I will not have 1 file per tape, I will have multiple files from the CF card. That would mean I would have to backup by CF files and that would be a ridiculous waste of time. I have heard of people doing it though. I guess it would depend on your NLE. Sorry I guess that was OT.

Stelios, I've tried it both ways with my Z5 and see little difference. The Z5 does an excellent job with setting the cam for ordinary SD acquisition and better than my VX2100. The color may be a bit better when downconverting on the fly, but if you do this you need to be very careful of your framing since you'll be seeing a 16:9 aspect ratio on the LCD/viewfinder.

It's easy to get areas of interest outside of the 4:3 frame if acquiring in 16:9. So you always need to be thinking of a 4:3 frame when seeing a 16:9 framing. Of course many programs allow you to change your framing while the program downconverts, but that creates an additional step in the editing process...especially if you need to do this for some clips or part of a clip.

I just find it easier to set the camera for SD if the final product is to be in SD.

For the record when I refer to SD I'm referring to 16:9 SD not 4:3...doesn't the term SD cover 4:3 and 16:9? Or am I mistaken?

Good point Jeff. Somehow I always think 4:3 when we talk SD, but you are correct, it can include 16:9 AR. When I shoot in SD I'm always shooting 4:3 because Corporate America is still predominantly 4:3.

My general thought on this is that if they have 16:9 displays, they're almost certainly HD. If that were the case I'd be shooting in HD for those cases.

If you set the guides on your LCD to 4:3 it's easy to see where you need to be when you're considering down converting the HDV footage.

Thanks Rob, good info. I never even knew that guide existed since I always shoot 4:3 for SD projects.

I'm not sure I understand your question. Better quality than what?

Better than shooting DV in the first place? It seems to me that keeping your res as high as possible for as long as possible in the workflow should yield you the best picture in the end. Let's just say that every step in the process results in a loss of x% quality (however you define quality). It's better to have those losses off a higher base, so it's still way better than DV when you render to DV. If you start out in DV, every degradation takes it lower below the spec.

If you mean why is it better to downconvert in cam than via software later, a lot of feedback I've seen has been that the cams just do a better job of this, but I'm sure it depends on the software you have to do the downconvert in your PC. But if Ken says he can't tell the difference, then I believe him and either way should be fine.

In any event, it's never made any sense to me to shoot in DV mode in an HDV cam, as in my opinion the most important attribute of and HDV cam is that it's, well, HDV.

No, 1080i is not the same as 30p. Your cam does 1080p30 OR 1080i60. Both are 1080 lines and are HD.

Unless you like the look of 30p, I can't see any reason to convert 60i to it. Even so, if you like that look that's how you should shoot.

Experiment with your new cam; only you know what you like best.

Adam, I really think you're overstating this. I've done A/Bs with my Z5 using 4:3 SD vs 16:9 HDV down-rezzed in camera as well as in my Edius Pro program. Since Edius is essentially lossless to DVD (certainly to the naked eye) when editing in DV from start to finish, I can't see the 'way better' approach in starting with HDV. Setting my Z5 to 4:3 DV from the start still yields a noticeably better picture than my VX2100.

The major 4:3 DV differences in the Z5 relative to the 2100 are in color, exposure and detail. Those differences, in my opinion, are certainly more significant than the differences between starting in HDV and down-rezzing to SD either in-camera or in editing.

But hey, we each look at things differently and whatever works for you.

Sorry, I didn't put it well. I was agreeing with you. When I said "way better" I didn't mean one way was way better than another, only that even bad HD is much more than 480 lines, so downconverting to SD from even bad HD is better than DV that has been degraded by the same amount... if in fact any degradation exists, which these days isn't all that likely.

For me, I just do everything in HD and actually make a BD .iso in case someone wants one, then downconvert and burn off all the SD DVDs. So I have the best of both worlds... but it took me getting a PC that was more expensive than my car to be able to do it.

OK, I got it Adam. I know one extremely good reason for starting with HDV (even if you know the final project will be SD) is for future marketing. I think Jeff mentioned this and my friend who also owns the Z5 has also thought this was a good idea.

That to me is one of the tremendous things about the CF Recorder. You can keep your project in HDV on tape and do a rapid transfer to your editing program in DV from the CF Recorder if you'd rather do it that way than in your editing program.

This is exactly the point. When you shoot and edit in HDV you're able to save your project files and timeline in HDV. In the future you can always render it out to a Blue Ray. There may even be a market for current customers getting DV to upgrade to HD down the road.
It's much more flexible.