Ken Stone article on EX1 -> SD workflow in FCP
 

Good article on getting the best results when downconverting, which seems to be a common difficulty with the EX1 footage:

http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage...put_young.html

I appreciate the reference, Evan.

But I'm always disappointed when I see yet another workflow solution that assumes that somehow the whole world wants play with "digital movies" at 24 frames.

It's a pet peave of mine when the VAST majority of video watched in the US is being watched at 29.97.

Has anyone done this kind of downconversion testing with a standard VIDEO framerate that would help us put good looking EX-1 footage on STANDARD NTSC DVDs and TVs - you know - the stuff that makes up the HUGE majority of the stuff that's actually broadcast and sold RIGHT NOW?

This is not a critique. It's just a call for paying attention to what the majority of clients are still paying for TODAY.

And that's footage that can be watched on a majority of the standard def TV sets still in use.

Have I read the wrong article? I didn't see any mention of 24 fps. Can you not convert the PAL references to the NTSC equivalents with this workflow?

I posted this a few days ago and few read it

http://dvinfo.net/conf/showpost.php?...12&postcount=1

My question would be why DV? Why not DVCPro50 or some higher quality SD? It would be easy enough to figure that out based on this article. The important thing is it shows how to downconvert HD Progressive.

I agree Craig. If down converting HD, why not stop at a 50 mb codec that will allow for more chroma resolution.

-gb-

Since I'm new to FCP, I'm wondering what you end up with this workflow? - Letterboxed, squeezed or edge cropped?

I'd be interested in knowing how you modify this workflow to be able to end up with each type, or at least letterboxed and edge cropped, which is what most of my clients want one or the other of.

You end up with SD anamorphic video because the anamorphic flag is checked on the down convert settings. It would appear squished on any device that doesn't understand the anamorphic flag.

-gb-

Thanks, Greg,

So, if you didn't check the box would you end up with letterboxed or edge-cropped? And how, then to achieve the other?

I would think you'd choose whatever codec you're printing to. Sometimes it can be useful to print out to a DV tape via firewire. In this case, you'd want a DV sequence. If going out to a DVCPro50 deck via SDI or component, then you'd use that codec. Beta or digibeta, ProRes or uncompressed if you have the hardware?

For DVD's I've had great results just exporting the sequence HD, then using Compressor's DVD preset to encode.

I tried that recently in iDVD which is really using Compressor (sans any user controls). It looked horrible IMHO.

In Rick Young's article he says right at the top

"Compressor or other encoding software provide options but these too produce less than beautiful images."

i did a job shot in 1080p 50i HQ mode, placed in a pal dv timeline with lower field dominance and played back on a monitor and looked great - nice and sharp.

to do a center cut, according to FCP manual, just go to the motion tab on your footage and enlarge it till it fills the frame. zoom size setting for me I believe was 61. don't quote me on that though.

Thanks, Ed. FCP is lot different from Avid Liquid Chrome.

I don't claim to know the under-the-hood relation of iDVD to Compressor, but I've found the results to be quite different. I too have tried using iDVD with poor results, but using Compressor then DVDSP looks great to me.

Sorry about that, I missed your post. I agree, I've generally been using DVCPro50 as a mastering format when going to DVD in order to avoid the double chroma subsampling you get in the conversion from DV's 4:1:1 to MPEG2's 4:2:0. In fact I think the only reason you'd ever choose DV would be if you wanted to go out to DV tape.

Which DVD preset? Are you using Progressive source?

At some point I'm going to do a test/compare
iDVD from HD Progressive source (which I tried and didn't like - lots of line twitter)
iDVD following Rick Young's workflow (but using DVCPro50)
Compressor/DVDStudio Pro using preset you recommend
Compressor/DVDStudio Pro using Rick Young's workflow but using DVCPro50

I think the issue I saw was related to how iDVD was handling HD Progressive source and although it's using Compressor's "underbelly" it may not be using it "intelligently" with Progressive source.

Is this process designed for the purpose of ending up on SD DVD? I ask because I make SD dubs to DVCAM and I followed the outline discussed here. I put the FCP movie that I ended up with inside a standard DV NTSC easy setup timeline and then I just embedded the XDCAM EX timeline within the same timeline. The embedded XDCAM EX timeline looked better than the FCP movie I created using the outline discussed here. I thought it looked very nice actually. Or perhaps I'm doing something different.

IF this procedure is designed for the sole purpose of going to SD DVD, one should not master out as DV but rather DVCPro50.

I guess I'm just a little confused because my results are showing up different.

Tyler can you please explain some things in your post.
"FCP Movie" what do you meant by that?

You added the "FCP Movie" to a "standard DV NTSC easy setup timeline"
You've lost me here. You're not using a 16:9 anamorphic DV NTSC timeline?
and then you "embedded the XDCAM EX timeline within the same timeline."

You've lost me here too. You embedded the XDCAM EX to the same timeline as what? To a Standard DV NTSC timeline with the "FCP Movie" also????

"looked very nice" on what? Computer screen, SD TV set, HDTV, burned to DVD, dubbed to DVCAM?

I couldn't begin to test your workflow. Heck I'm not even sure what you started with. HD Progressive? HD Interlace?

That sounds right. iDVD gave me that line twitter too. I've exported several different progressive hd timelines and used compressor's best-quality DVD settings (my projects have been short).

I have a short 1080p30 project. I think I should use various methods and put it on to one DVD using DVDSP and see what the differences might be.

I'd also try Rick Young's workflow to iDVD and see if that works better than just dropping the HD file in to a 16:9 anamorphic iDVD project.

It'll probably be a few days before I can run the tests though.

Craig, I'm sorry. Re-reading my post I now realize how much it didn't make sense. I was at work and in a hurry when I typed it. I'll give some much greater detail.

Shooting with EX1 in 1080 30p HQ mode.

Ingest footage into Final Cut Pro and edit my project.

When project is finished I always export the entire timeline as a single Final Cut Pro Quicktime Movie file in the native format I'm editing. In this case, XDCAM EX 1080 30p. I do this by going to File>Export>Quicktime Movie and then leaving as current settings and checking "Make Movie Self Contained". I do this to save this file as my "Master". The quality of my program can't get any better than this file, so I will save this file to a DL-DVD and if I ever need the program again I can pull it off the DL-DVD and drop it right back on a timeline.

Now I need to get this project out to both DVCAM and Betacam SP for television broadcast. What I've been doing is taking that "Master" file and dropping it into a sequence using the DV-NTSC easy setup. It's not anamorphic so it puts my program in letterbox, which is what I want since the broadcast stations don't want anamorphic.

Now instead of that last step I followed Ken's workflow for down-converting and pasted everything into the sequence based on his settings. I then exported that as a final cut pro quicktime movie and placed that movie on my sequence setup with the DV-NTSC easy setup for out put to DVCAM and BetaSP.

To my eye while viewing on my Sony broadcast monitor the "Master (XDCAM EX)" file looks BETTER than DV file using Ken's sequence settings on the DV-NTSC timeline going to DVCAM and BetaSP.

Obviously this simplifies things for me as I don't have to do the extra steps that Ken posted. I just don't understand why though since so many folks have complained about the ability of FCP to simply down-convert the footage.

The only thing I can think of is that it's because my destination is not DVD and that where footage starts looking bad is the down-conversion to MPEG-2 for DVD, NOT just the downconversion to SD.

This makes good sense.

When you drop into DV NTSC are you simply using typical lower field first interlace (not changing anything at all from Easy Setup)?

What Sony Broadcast Monitor are you using to check?

When using Ken's (actually Rick Young's) last step to DV are you taking into account the source is progressive as Rick does?

What I'm curious about is the conversion from Progressive to Interlace (Lower field with DV) and how that impact the video?

The problem I had going to DVD (admittedly with iDVD only seemed to be around line twitter and what I think is bad conversion of progressive to interlace.

In my case I'm only doing spots when I do broadcast and I'm using MPEG2 program streams with DG Fastchannel delivery. I need to look at HD for HD channel delivery as well as SD for those channels.

For client viewing I'm using SD DVD. In some cases clients want to do "paper" cuts in programs like iMovie so I need to consider DV vs DVD delivery for window dubs.

I'm not around the monitor at the moment, so I'm not sure of the model. It's by no means the top of the line though and my assessment is more "eyeballing" it than anything scientific.

I'm not changing anything with the DV-NTSC preset. Just using it like it is because I have to go out to DVCAM and changing anything messes with my firewire output to the DSR-40. I'm assuming Final Cut is switching field dominance as it sees fit and doing conversions automatically.

I've considered shooting in 1080 60i but I realize that progressive is the future and the programs I produce are for children and are meant to have replay value for at least 5-7 years as there are always new people moving into the age bracket we target. So far the progressive to interlaced translates very well and I can't complain. I see no twitter. If anything, it may just seem like it has a slight "stutter" but it basically looks like watching a film shot in progressive on an interlaced CRT.

All that being said though, the downconversion from the EX1 camera via component absolutely blows away any downconversion I have been able to do in software. Which is exactly why I wish I could send my edited project BACK to the SxS card and then make dubs via component to DVCAM and BetaSP. I guess I'll just keep dreaming. Or I'll get a new Mac Pro with lots of memory and hard drive space, and a fancy capture card. I'm dreaming either way. :)

Well, after much testing today I think I've determined how to get the best SD downconversion to BetaSP. After the completion of my edit, I drop my final edited sequence on an HDV 1080 60i sequence. I then render and send that back out firewire and record it back to the EX1. I then hook up via component to my deck and let the camera do the downconversion. This method really produces great results, even with progressive footage that has been converted.

Ideally, Sony will give us a way to put the XDCAM EX BACK on the SxS card so we could skip the entire conversion to HDV. It would save a ton of time and maintain a higher quality.

Of course none of this solves anything for those who aren't going back out of their computer and want to burn DVD's.

Greg,

Because sometimes more resolution isn't necessarily a good thing.

I have more corporate clients asking me to compress and downrez work for the web or corporate intranets than in asking me to deliver HD content - a LOT more.

They aren't even asking for HD origination for large venue stuff like corporate conference and trade show display. Most forward looking companies are in belt tightening mode with recession/current stock market anxiety and don't want to pay for "frills" right now. So HD origination is a total non-starter.

Current SD output is more than good enough to populate a 320x240 15fps window in a Flash based training module.
Wait, strike that. I don't even need 320x240! I'm doing mostly green screen work where I can knock out a live talking character to composite with a still background to make compression easier and further reduce bandwidth. So the actual moving video window might be a 100 x 240 live video area!

For that, the EX-1 is an OVERREZZED solution. But so affordable and future proof that it commands a close look.

But only if there's a smooth workflow for using it NOW.

And that's what I'm looking for.

Bill, I think you're making a few mistakes in some of your assumptions.
More rez is better. Just look at the Apple movie trailers . . . even the small versions. Coming from "feature film" resolution helps even if you're going small.

Progressive is always best for the web. No need to deal with de-interlace issues.

More rez can get you a better key. More tightly knit samples even at 4:2:0. Depending on the workflow (and I'm not recommending any particular one since I haven't tested) going into 4:2:2 color space will help keys and graphics. That means DVCPro50 4:2:2 is a good thing. One can also take 10 bit uncompressed 4:2:2 straight from the camera head if you have the record infrastructure for it.

Best bet would be to shoot 1080p30 out of camera HD-SDI 10 bit Uncompressed 4:2:2. great for keying. Progressive. Downconvert gives you plenty of room to reposition shots, do fake dolly and tracking shots.

Otherwise I suspect putting that 1080p30 material in a DVCPro50 (or 8 bit uncompressed or ProRez in FCP?) timeline will really help keys and graphics going to the "smallest" screen.

Exactly, that's one of the often overlooked reasons to originate in HD even for SD delivery. You give yourself a lot of 'wiggle room' within the smaller output frame. Keyframing camera moves can save an otherwise unusable shot.

I also feel that the finished image when down converting to a smaller size, will benefit from a better camera in terms of dynamic range and color reproduction. IOW, giving the encoder more to work with going in, yields a better down convert IMHO.

-gb-

Guys,

I'll spot you the general principal that of "more origination rez is better"

HOWEVER,

as a practical matter, starting with one raster and delivering on another - has ALWAYS been problematic - precisely because that very process can easily yield poor results.

As evidence, just look at the glut of SD content currently being shoehorned into HD cable channels. The work doesn't look NEARLY as good as it does on an SD set - precisely because they're re-mapping a high def raster onto a lower def one.

I consider it the digital video equivalent of re-screening a screened photo back in the print industry.

EVERYPLACE I watch HD on SD displays *** OR *** SD ON HD displays I see more POOR IMAGE QUALITY than I ever did when we had a single raster standard to work with. Hard to read type. Color fringing. etc. etc.

So I'm not fully convinced that TODAY, dumping all of our SD origination isn't asking for a lot of trouble. Not so long as it's still largely an SD viewing world

In fact, isn't that what this thread is all about? Dialing in on the "magic" formula to translate the EX-1s high density raster into something that will translate well to the real world SD and SMALLER than SD rasters that we're all forced to work with?

Unless I miss something in my understanding of what's involved, we're talking about a lot of digital number voodoo that's the functional equivalent of the "convolution" and "alpha edge masking" that has always been necessary to make something created in one rez look acceptable in another rez.

The mere fact that the early adopters who are reporting here are saying that they're trying workflows that give them TERRIBLE results, indicates that this isn't nearly as simple as having an "output to SD" choice in FCP that does it right every time.

Isn't that the whole point of this discussion?

I'd be interested in hearing from those who are having an easy time of this.

How are you taking your EX-1 footage and delivering it to clients via SD DVD? Is there a simple way that always looks great? Understandably not as great as HD on Blue Ray with all the original rez, but at LEAST as good as what we have now via standard SD rez to DVD.

Cuz I'm a little reluctant to tell clients I'm shooting in HD so that I can deliver POORER quality on the discs they use right now in their current SD kiosk traiining systems.

The minute I can get this answered to my complete satisfaction - I'll order a couple of EX-1s and never look back.

But NOT if it's gonna add another messy step in my production chain for extra resolution that right now, NOBODY in my customer base is asking for.

[QUOTE=Craig Seeman;831380]Bill, I think you're making a few mistakes in some of your assumptions.

Craig,

With due respect I don't think so.

My only assumptions are as follows.

A) Without a ready market for what any gizmo produces, investing in it MUST be questioned if you want to foster a sustainable business.
B) Workflow changes that make things HARDER to accomplish must return MORE profit to justify the grief.

And most importantly,

C) It's not what I want that makes my business grow. It's understanding what my clients actually need AND WILL PAY FOR!

And for most of them, they're willing to pay to accomplish solid business communications with customers, employees and occasionally the general public. Very few of which are spending much time watching HD content RIGHT NOW.

Go out and look for yourself. Where is the HD stuff? It's pretty much limited to retail displays - from mall signage to bar televisions - and a pretty small subset of home televisions which can display the native rez of the EX-1 properly. (Granted that number is growing, but it's still VERY, VERY small compared to SD viewing.)

For EVERYTHING else, down-rezzing is either clearly advantageous or downright necessary!

So I don't think it's foolish to address the down-rez necessity before I retire my DSR gear and switch to EX kit.

Don't get me wrong, I can see that I'll need to do it at the right moment.

I just don't want that moment to be after I've spent a YEAR watching the gear depreciate without anyone actually PAYING me for the higher resolution potential it represents.

That's not just an assumption. I kinda think it rises to the level of BELIEF. :)

I agree. If you want an SD DVD converting to DV first is crazy. I had good results yesterday making an SD DVD from a 1280x720 30p project by rendering to ProRes, then just dragging that to Compressor and selecting 90 min best quality-

Hi Bill,

Sorry, but I can't agree to that. Being an ex-print-industry guy myself, I have to correct you on this. With re-screening you're trying to re-create information that is no longer there. In the case of a half-tone photo, screening leaves only black and white and nothing in between.

Let's leave print out of it and get back to the SD <-> HD conversion arena ;)

Shoehorning video into another format and make it look it's best can be difficult but at least we should have a lot more information to work with. Using the correct tools is a big part of the solution. Maybe that means recomposing some projects, re-wrapping others or using tools like Compressor to convert formats. It just depends on the project at hand.

George/

Bill, you're confusing a lot of things here.

First, SD to HD is going to have problems. It's going the OTHER way where you get the advantage of source resolution.

The poor image quality you see is often due to the broadcaster and how they're doing their compression. I've seen some local HD ONLY channels that look good. Channels that do both are hit and miss and miss more often than not. Don't blame that on the format though. I certainly would NOT hand in SD to broadcast on an HD channel when I can deliver HD.

I can certainly shoot in both SD and HD. Some of my clients are moving to HD with my encouragement AND THEY'RE PAYING MORE FOR IT. If you can show how it benefits them (and it certainly can even with SD delivery) they'll pay for it.

I haven't a clue what you mean by HD being "harder." Learning how to shoot, edit and even downconvert require new and improved skills. Getting good downconverts is about LEARNING not HARDER. All of us here are LEARNING. The actually process is VERY EASY. Discovering the best way may take some exploration though.

For ME, tapeless is SO MUCH EASIER that I'd rather learn to downconvert than continue shooting in SD.

BTW there certainly are many people shooting HDV and charging DV/SD prices. That's simply BAD business. Shooting with the EX1 can certainly differentiate oneself from those in the market.

If you don't think your customers will see or pay for it maybe you're not selling it right OR maybe your clients do NOT want to pay for it. That's OK.

Don't EVER buy gear that doesn't grow your business. I did NOT wait for my clients to ASK for HD. I bought EX1 because I thought I could sell the EX1's capabilities to my SD clients and . . . I have . . . even though I need to deliver SD for them.

Gosh maybe we need to start another thread on how to sell the EX1 to your SD clients.

QUOTE:

I haven't a clue what you mean by HD being "harder." Learning how to shoot, edit and even downconvert require new and improved skills. Getting good downconverts is about LEARNING not HARDER. All of us here are LEARNING. The actually process is VERY EASY. Discovering the best way may take some exploration though.


Well, what I mean is that today, once I shoot and edit in today's (DV-NTSC) I maintain both the resolution and aspect ratio right onto the DVD. The compression is automatically applied during authoring and it's designed to fill a known raster.

When someone shoots with an EX-1 - they originate a 16x9 aspect ratio with a much higher pixel density.

Then you have to make a series of choices. Since the real world doesn't fully support EITHER that aspect ratio or the higher resolution of your origination, you're largely FORCED to resize and/or reformat and/or re-rez your work.

At least if you're going to deliver to the two largest target outlets for work today - 1- SD legacy sets and 2 - web and portable devices that have little use for an EX-1 size signal.

That's all I'm saying.

Where's the simple path?

And why are there so many "early adopters" of the EX-1 who seem to be having trouble delivering acceptable looking FULLY COMPATIBLE video into these lucrative streams.

Perhaps I am mistaking this. Perhaps folks here are churning out SD-DVDs for clients originated on EX-1s right and left.

But everything I've read so far talks about ADDING SIGNIFICANT TRANSCODING TIME AND EFFORT over and above what we do for SD originated work today.

Am I the only one concerned with this?

I'm not arguing about charging the same for HD work as SD. I'm arguing about inserting EX-1 acquisition in a perfectly acceptable current SD origination workflow that already simply and easily meets most video customers needs.

I'm curious about this question. Does this approach make things UNREASONABLY difficult if you aren't planning to do most of your delivery on HD ***RIGHT NOW!***

That affects (or at least it should affect) the speed and simplicity of the transition for many of us - not from SD to HD when we need HD. But from adopting and implementing EX-1s in a SD shop with the idea that we'll be ready to switch to HD when and if our customers ask us to.

Is that clearer?

I think Bill does have a point. Someone taping a training seminar that is going to be played at a corporation meeting in a month on a big standard def projector and then never played again does not have any need to go through the extra hassles of shooting HD.

However, I think most people want to be "future proof". I know if I was a wedding videographer I'd want an HD master of the ceremony to sell my client on Blu-Ray in five years.

As for what my company does, we produce children's programming that is supposed to have a reply value of about 10 years! So everything I shoot in SD now is something I won't be able to use in the future. So for many of us we just have to learn to jump through the hoops for a high quality downconversion process.

If my clients see an advantage to shooting HD and are willing to pay extra for it than I'll certainly have the time to do the downconvert given the extra money.

Many people get EXCELLENT results downconverting HD to SD. Keep in mind that downconverting Progressive HD may have a different workflow than downconverting Interlace HD.

The downconvert takes time. It's worth that time if clients are willing to pay for HD. It's not worth that time if clients aren't.

The ability to use HD in SD timeline and do fake track and dolly shots is a good example why HD MIGHT be worth it. It can be less expensive than actually buying/renting/setting up tracking and dolly shots and you have complete freedom to alter and improve such movement in post.

16:9 with letter box in SD is not only acceptable but desirable by many clients. Of course you could get an HDV camera that shoots 16:9 SD and there's nothing wrong with going that route if that's what your clients want and what they're willing to pay for.

Of course I can hand a client a DL-DVD with the raw clips from the EX1 and Sony's Mac and Windows Clip Browser and my clients can view the Master clips without the need of either a DV or HDV deck.

Do the math first
 

I am a little bit astonished you are talking 34 messages about which workflow might yield a better (the best?) result to convert from HD to SD and nobody mentions the basic math you have to do first to get the best possible result.

Let's assume you have original footage in 1920x1080. The best downresszed
format will be in 960x540 or 480x270. It's always a full figure division, be it 1, 2, 3 or 4. We are working in the digital domain and digital means that only full figure divisions are possible to get a decent result. Anything else can only yield to more or less mediocre results.

As I am living in a PAL country, I can only argue from that point on now.
Please bare with me...

960 x 540 is 16x9, as is 480x270. I then open the file in the player typing Command-J and changing 540 in the resolution dialog box into 576 ... and voilà ...
960 turns into 1024. Save that and you have an SD file, which can be easily converted into 720x576 (PAL anamorphic) in outstanding qualty.

You may de-interlace at any point after down-rezzing from HD to SD or start with a progressive file from the start.

Hope this helps.

I am sorry but this is absolutely false. The notion that decent resizing / recompression results can be achieved only by whole-number divisions "because it's digital" is purely a myth and there is no truth in it whatsoever. Or to put it a better way, this may be true only for a lousy and inefficient resizing or recompression algorithm.

Craig,

First and foremost, I don't see any of this as my clients paying EXTRA for anything. The VAST majority of the money they're paying me is for my knowledge and experience. For my decision making. The cost of the equipment is and should be incidental in my view.

Don't get me wrong, it's nice that cameras are getting both better and cheaper. IN SOME WAYS. In others not so much...

For instance, I think everyone here should stop and realize that one potential downside to camera's like the EX-1 is that their low financial entry point mean that there will be a LOT of competition suddenly showing up in the "high def" production realm. Supply and demand realities mean that this very camera will put HUGE downward price pressure on "high def" production prices.

I'm all for competition, since like I said above, I don't base my business on equipment.

But it sure wouldn't surprise me at all if most of us find lots of beginners flooding the market with "low cost HD production" based on cameras like the EX-1. It's just how things go.

So if you're planning to charging MORE for EX-1 "high def" I'd suggest you do it while you can. A year from now, I bet EX-1 shooters won't be getting a penny more than decent SD shooters get today - likely less.

Hopefully by then, we'll all have absorbed the cost of working with HD footage natively and can handle the lower competitive rates.


As to your other contention...

I'm sorry but this just seems inherently WEIRD to me.

I can't imagine looking at a monitor and trying to decide - not if the framing is RIGHT - but if I *might* want to use some part of the whole later.

At least in my brain, rather than showing the proper relationship between the characters or visuals, the idea that somebody will have to go in after the fact and RE-FRAME the work sends chills up my spine.

It might seem like a "bonus" capability on the surface, but I see it as a HUGE time waster in all but some exceptionally unusual cirtumstances.

After all, isn't that precisely the problem with pan and scan films re-aspected for TV?

Instead of seeing what someone with a decent eye framed, you're got to compromise via pan and scan in virtually every scene!

Yikes.

And as to your "virtual dolly shot idea", that escapes me as well.

If the shot needs to be a dolly shot - I can't even FATHOM trying to fake that with the 15% left and right you'd get from EX-1.

If it needs to be a dolly shot - it needs to be a dolly shot. Period. Thinking about providing one audience with a pesudo dolly shot and possibly providing another with a fixed original framing in my mind guarantees that you'll never get the damn shot RIGHT for either.

But maybe I'm just not bright enough to see the benefit in trying to frame for two purposes at once.

FWIW.

It's really a bit more than that. You can fit 4 standard definition frames in the size of a high definition frame. If you were to place an SD frame in the center of an HD frame, you could move 50% in each direction. Not that you would be thinking that during the production phase, but it could save a shot, or make one a bit more interesting.

If you don't feel HD is right for your business model at the moment, that's okay. There's still a lot of BetaSP cameras finding work at the moment. Even if you choose not to shoot HD, I'd still encourage you to start shooting widescreen format as soon as possible.

-gb-

Fair comment, Greg.

But since you're shooting an F-350 and have the OPTION of shooting SD or HD - how about your take on which format your camera spends more time in?

Are your clients clamoring for widescreen? How are they showing it and to what audience?

I'm seriously interested.