HDV or not HDV? Confused about wedding video format.
 

Just wanted some advice regarding my own wedding that was recently shot in HDV (HDR-FX1) by an external company.

I have done some editing in the past with DV but i'm new to HDV. The videographers were to supply HDV masters on tapes, and edited files on DVD-R. I was hoping to edit my own version for fun/as a learning experience.

The company supplied me with m2t files with a resolution of 702x576.
I was concerned about this resolution as i understood HDV to be 720p or 1080i. The company has tried to convince me that because the files are *.m2t, that IT IS HD.

Lastly, this is their most recent response to my queries:

"HDV is in fact 720p. Its can also be 720p x 576. There is no exact definition of what HDV actually is.IF you are playing the HDV on a 42" TV for example, 1440 x 1080 will give you a better result than and smaller screen size. This doesn't mean that 576 is not HD. There are also different size pixels to consider. Square pixels at 1:1 are better for TV. The key is the bit rate of 24000 KBPS and 50 frames a second of which your original files already are."

Sorry for the long post, but I'm not sure if I've been unreasonable with my complaints. Also, the m2t files offer only minimal quality improvements over DVD. I've seen consumer HDR-HC1 samples that look wonderful, but i'm quite disappointed with my own wedding video.

Thanks everyone for your help

If it was shot on an FX-1 in HDV mode, not DV mode the resultant HDV footage can only be 1080i (=1440x1080 non-square pixels).

It sounds to me like either:

(a) they shot in DV mode, and they're trying to bluff you into the fact that it's HDV (and they will never be able to provide the promised HD footage)

or

(b) they downconverted the footage in catpure or editing to SD, which for PAL SD is 720x576 (and maybe they don't want to supply you with the full resolution footage?)

Their email response to you is complete bo**ocks (actually, it's quite inventive and amusing bo**ocks, but still nonsense), clearly trying to confuse you and wriggle out of a situation they've got themselves into. Maybe they're just plain ignorant of what their FX-1 does and what HDV is, but I suspect there is more to it than that. I will be interested to see how this one turns out!

Darren,
contact me directly through here and include the text on this thread.
Also pls provide me with the business details of the company who shot for you.

Also, may i ask, what are u using the view the M2t files? Have u run the tapes on a HDV deck?

Need more info and its wankers like this who try to give u the runaround who make it hard for the rest of us...

these guys dont know what theyre talking about..

-------------------

have done some editing in the past with DV but i'm new to HDV. The videographers were to supply HDV masters on tapes, and edited files on DVD-R. I was hoping to edit my own version for fun/as a learning experience.

((What are you using to edit?? Whats ur NLE?))

The company supplied me with m2t files with a resolution of 702x576.
((Was this on the disc, or on the tape itself? How are u vewing the tape? ))

I was concerned about this resolution as i understood HDV to be 720p or 1080i.
((You are correct.. its also 1080i when its carrying a progressive frame.. there is NO 1080p, there IS 1080p within a 1080i stream however... too much info for here i know.. hell ive had morons tell me 720p isnt HD, and others try to convince me that 720i exists... so there are many misnomers and many uneducated ppl out there.. ))

The company has tried to convince me that because the files are *.m2t, that IT IS HD.

((My arse... dude, i can have a 360x240 web file rendered out to M2t.. the transport stream is just that.. the transport stream... doesnt matter what is on it... thing is... if this WAS HDV on your DVD discs, youd only fit about 20minutes worth of footage on each disc... if the tapes are HDV id recomedn u go back with tapes in hand and ask him to recapture the footage and take your own external HDD with you. Make sure he copies those files to the HDD. When u get home, make a backup jsut in case.. when u finihs ur edit, delete ur backup files. ))

Lastly, this is their most recent response to my queries:

"HDV is in fact 720p.

((No it isnt, for the FX1, the only HDV you will get is 1080i, the rest is DV... you wont even get 25p from the FX.. its still interlaced and from what i know, teh FX doesnt have cineframe.. i could be wrong, but either way, theres no way in hell its going to be native 25p.. ))

Its can also be 720p x 576. ((No, it isnt.. but according to Sony Australia's marketing dept they consider 720x576@ 25p to be HD, this is incorrect.
HDV in a technical sense is only 720p @19mbps or 1080i @ 25mbps In teh case of a SOny HDV camera, they only offer 1080i and THATS IT... the rest is DV))

((There is no exact definition of what HDV actually is.

((Yes there is.. i just explained it above.. ))

IF you are playing the HDV on a 42" TV for example, 1440 x 1080 will give you a better result than and smaller screen size.

((This is dependant on your source resolution.. then you have your compression factors such as GOP and colour space etc etc and this is where teh argument of why HDV sucks comes to play.. but thats another thread.. ))

This doesn't mean that 576 is not HD.

((Yes it does.. 576p <or 576i for that matter> is NOT HD... never has been.. never will be))

There are also different size pixels to consider. << Not different sized.. different SHAPED.. There IS a difference.. but the aspect ratio shoudlnt make a difference whatsoever. He shouldnt have even bought this up >>

Square pixels at 1:1 are better for TV. ((How so?? TV has rectangular pixels.. and if a source is running square (as in HDV tape source), the TV will automatically adjust for it, because the TV is HARDWIRED INTO BEING THIS NATIVE ASPECT.. black bars anyone? pretty fuggin obvious.. god what drugs is this guy on? ))

The key is the bit rate of 24000 KBPS and 50 frames a second of which your original files already are."

((Well hes speaking out of his arse, its 25k kbps (or 25mbps), and its either 25frames or 50 fields.. in your case, it would be 50i <fields>... considering this guy doesnt know what hes talking about and the fact the camera was a Sony id say your m2t's on your discs are 576i i cant say whats on your tape coz i havent seen them))

Sorry for the long post, but I'm not sure if I've been unreasonable with my complaints.

((Not unreasonable at all.. scan in your contract and email it to me.. Ill back you up dude.. if he said he was going to provide you with HDV on Disc, thats what you should get.. even if it means 50 friggin discs with 20minutes of footage on each one.. if thats in the contract, so be it.. if he said DVD then to say Raw footag on tape, then u shoudl find a deck which plays sony HDV and check the source. if hes given u tape in HDV format, then its not your problem, if however on tape is SD, then hes screwed.. ))

Also, the m2t files offer only minimal quality improvements over DVD.
((They would.. ))

I've seen consumer HDR-HC1 samples that look wonderful, but i'm quite disappointed with my own wedding video.

((Consider the lighting, camerawork skill and experience as well as the way the camera was operated on teh day .u have the footage, u should be able to see how fast and precise the camera work is. From here u will get an idea of the cameramans proficiency with his gear.. ))

((Most poeple whove had a bad experience with their videographers will be inherantly biased against the finished product. I cant comment as i havent seen the work, but dont let ur emotion get in the way of th technical aptitude of the operator. If u can determine that their skill sucked, then u might have another grievance altogether..
Pricks like this lie and scam their way and f^#k it up for the rest of us.. they shouldnt be in business if they dont know what the hell theyre doing))

Thanks everyone for your help

((Dont forget.. email me your contract. I need to see that it stipulates your files are given to you in HDV format in HD resolution. Seems that this guy is lying to save his ass coz he doesnt know what hes doing.. ))

These guys are either liars or scam artists. tell them to give you the tapes, and that you'll pay the $6.00 each. With the tapes you can borrow/rent a hdv cam and down convert, or capture hdv.
Bruce S. Yarock
www.yarock.com

What I meant to say was that they are either liarsand scam artists, or imbeciles. Either way, they're trying to scew you.
Bruce Yarock
www.yarock.com

It sounds like they shot SD with the camera by accident and are now trying to cover their butts.

In order for 720x576 to be considered any form of HD it would have to be 720x576 at 50 progressive frames per second and not 25 progressive frames per second. The only HDV camera that can do this is JVC 720p cameras.

With the SONY HDV cameras you either get a tape with m2t files which are 1440x1080i or a tape with DV files at 720x576. There is no way at all to get m2t files at any other resolution other then 1440x1080i.

Either they shot DV by accident and encoded the files as m2t files to mask this mistake or gave you a down converted version for whatever reason.

If they did give you a down converted version I am confused as to why they wouldn't just give you a DV version that would be a lot easier to edit and deal with.

If the video is progressive it could have been shot with Cineframe25 and as DV which for the most part would look like true 25p footage because even though only a single HD field is used it is still enough for SD. To me this sounds like what happened.

There are so many things wrong with the original post, it was quite amusing to read. Yes, it certainly sounds like the company shot in DV and are trying to cover their ass by encoding the files into m2t.

Thomas, 720x576 progressive cannot be considered HD. I think you are confusing that with 720p, which is 1280x720 pixels. That is the minimum standard for high definition.

Thanks for the laughs Peter, your post cracked me up.

I am not confusing anything. 720x576 is a SD resolution but it falls into the area of EDTV which is 50 or 60 progressive fps just like 1280x720 at 50 or 60 fps. So it is kind of between SD and HD because it has the quality of SD progressive but at a higher framerate then what normal SD is limited to.

Anyways I doubt this is what they did because it cannot really be used with anything other then HD-DVD.

"In order for 720x576 to be considered any form of HD it would have to be 720x576 at 50 progressive frames per second and not 25 progressive frames per second. The only HDV camera that can do this is JVC 720p cameras."

by the sounds of what was written, and tehway Sony market HD resolutions, theyre using the Sony merketing machine as a means to quantify that 576p as being HD..

let me reiterated. 720x576 25 or 50p is NOT HD resolution...

Thanks for all your advice guys.
The company has given me this offer:

"We are in the process of re encoding your files to 1920x 1440. You probably wont see any difference on your PC. I will however do as you have requested. Its another two days of encoding and we will call you when they are ready for collection".

Isn't that aspect ratio incorrect? They don't seem to have any idea and they keep replying with this rubbish. It's just insulting that they keep talking down to me...

btw, is it possible for them to re-encode original SD files up to HD resolution in a way to fool me? Other than quality, is there a way i can even tell?

Oh, and if anyone on this forum is from Australia (Melbourne), are there any good/affordable places to hire HDV cameras to check the actual RAW tapes?

Though i planned to edit the original footage with a new pc and HDV camera, the wedding cost more than i had planned for and i eventually got neither! :)

Yeah that sounds like the material is SD and they will just resize it to a HD resolution. It also kind of sounds like they shot the event in 4x3 since 1920x1440 would be a 4x3 ratio which isn't even a valid format. They may realize that they cannot use 1920x1080 because you would notice the 4x3 video stretched out. 1080i HDV is actually 1440x1080 which sounds 4x3 but the pixels are anamorphic and when the video gets decoded it looks like it is 1920x1080.

I'm not sure exactly what these guys did but one thing that I do know is that they have no clue what they are doing. Are you sure they even used a FX1 or is that just what they told you they were going to use?

""We are in the process of re encoding your files to 1920x 1440." Why?

Absolutely agree with you Thomas: they are undoubtedly going to resample the SD video to some ridiculous non-standard HD resolution (at 4:3) in an attempt to fool you, Darren. There should be no need to "re-sample" any HDV footage they have (if they had any). Just copy the tapes. Didn't you say, Darren, that they were originally going to supply "HDV masters on tapes"? That's what you want: HDV tapes*, not re-encoded m2t files or any such nonsense.

This is also given away by their statement "you won't notice any difference" - of course you won't notice any difference if the SD is simply being resampled to HD. They are trying to pre-prepare their defences for when you go back to them and say "this looks just the same resolution, only replicated pixels".

They obviously shot in SD, and are still trying to wriggle out of it and bluff that they're giving you HD when they clearly don't have any such footage.

(Edit: * Sorry you didn't get your HDV camera (yet!) - but if they give you "HDV tapes" from an FX-1 shot in HDV mode, then (as you will probably know) they will look physically just like miniDV tapes, but they WON'T play in your miniDV camera. If they do play... then they've given you SD/miniDV tapes.)

Why can't they give you the tapes???? Like I said earlier. they are either incompetent morons,liars or scam artists...probably all three.
Bruce S. yarock
www.yarock.com

what Mr Yarock said.. i love ur name by the way..