HD editing and downconversion. Best method..Just need the basic answers?

Fred Foronda · June 5th, 2006, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornady Setiawan

fred,
your camcorder's downconvert is better than vegas's... it's because vegas deinterlace the material, while camcorder does the separate field method.

to test this, try downconverting a 25P or 30P (cineframe) material both in vegas & using the camcorder. Use progressive project, with no deinterlacing. I think the result will be identical.

I have two identical clips. One is a raw m2t file and the other is downconverted from fx1. Placed both on the time line and render it out to DVDA with properties: nonprogressive and no deinterlacing render set to "good". I don't see any difference on the "wavy artifacts during camera movement" its still there. I think I might be missing a step here. Can someone list how their are going about with HDV into Vegas getting the final product on HDV tape and to dvd.

Douglas Spotted Eagle · June 5th, 2006, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornady Setiawan

that's why your camcorder's downconvert is better than vegas's... it's because vegas deinterlace the material, while camcorder does the separate field method.

.

That statement simply isn't so. Additionally, you lose quite a bit going to 4:1:1 vs working in 4:2:2 all the way through (CineForm HDI)

The wavy lines are likely coming from a misrun field, but Fred, can you post a short bit of your raw m2t file (say....3 sec?) and then post stills of the problem?
Are you using "BEST" as part of your downconvert?

Fred Foronda · June 5th, 2006, 04:01 PM

Going from CFHD file back to HDV looks identical from the original m2t. But going to DVDA is great but just that wavy artifacts during camera movements. Here are my steps when doing a project:

Load m2t footage usuing Connect HD
Load onto Vegas time line do editing
Print back to HDV tape with the proper settings. Used "GOOD". Product looks identical with the original footage.

Now to DVDA. I use the same render file that was render for tape and adjust the project properties settings for dvd (change template for nstc dv, non-progressive, blend fields...) I have been using "GOOD" instead of "BEST" because it takes to long to process. Am I missing something or doing something wrong?

Thanks for everyone's input!!

Douglas Spotted Eagle · June 5th, 2006, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fred Foronda

Now to DVDA. I use the same render file that was render for tape and adjust the project properties settings for dvd (change template for nstc dv, non-progressive, blend fields...) I have been using "GOOD" instead of "BEST" because it takes to long to process. Am I missing something or doing something wrong?
!!

Back up da' bus...
you're rendering in DVD A for your DVDs?
STOP that. It's no where near as good, and doesn't offer the "BEST" option for resampling. Use the free DVD prep in Vegas if you must, but render for DVD in Vegas, not DVD A if you're starting from HDV.

Fred Foronda · June 5th, 2006, 06:10 PM

Sorry for the confusion but after I print to tape I use that same file (m2t) and render to go to dvd. I place it on Vegas timeline, hit tools,scripting, then batch render and I select the appropriate mpeg2 which is DVDA NSTC widescreen then I select the audio which is stereo dvd. Next I open that new rendered file into DVDA.

Hornady Setiawan · June 6th, 2006, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle

That statement simply isn't so. Additionally, you lose quite a bit going to 4:1:1 vs working in 4:2:2 all the way through (CineForm HDI)

hi Douglas,

yes i agree about the lost in color space. But regarding quality loss, there're several aspect:
- color space
- scaling algo (bicubic, lanczos, etc)
- scaling method with regard to interlaced source

i think the most visually discernible loss is the last one.

let's leave the 4:1:1 or the 4:2:0(PAL) & the scaling algo for now, my question:

how do you think HDV 1080/50i recorded material, downconverted in the camera thru the camera's DV output is done?

remember that the output is DV interlaced. The source in tape is HDV interlaced, and the downconverted out from the camera's DV out is also interlaced. How does the camera do it?

thx.

Douglas Spotted Eagle · June 6th, 2006, 10:12 PM

How the camera does it, is first; it's never progressive, so I'm not sure why you're riding that horse.
Second, the actual method is proprietary. I know how it's done, but NDA precludes it from being discussed.
Third, having done a LOT of testing for personal and professional use, using Vegas, AE/Algolith, and other tools for scaling, Vegas does a better job than the camera overall.
Forgetting about the colorspace/compression is like saying "well....without the 450HP engine, the indy 500 car is still an Indy 500 car, it just doesn't go as fast."
No, it's no longer an Indy 500 car.

Are we supposed to forget about resolution, too, while we're forgetting about/ignoring color sampling? So...the additional value of more chroma is to be ignored?
Sorry, at no point can I go along with your logic. I'm usually open-minded, but to say:
~you've not tested it in Vegas
~ignore 4:1:1/4:2:0 for PAL
~Work with DV rather than HD in CineForm
all adds up to a lack of experience with the format and the output. On the other hand, I've easily got 2000 hours of tape from every HDV cam out there. And have converted *most* of it for SD delivery, along with HDCAM delivery.

Finally, what if he wants to deliver in HD at some point in time? In-camera conversion obviates that option. Completely.
If you've got the computer horsepower, and even suspect you'll ever want an HD version of the project, and aren't using GearShift, then you're simply nuts to convert in-camera. CineForm is by far the most elegant solution, and any other HDI is still a better solution. Better still is not downconverting, but rather UP converting at capture to a 4:2:2 uncompressed stream via a Decklink card. The difference, delivered to SD, is substantial.

Hornady Setiawan · June 6th, 2006, 10:21 PM

hi Fred,

letme explain again in a different way,

your m2t is 1440x1080 interlaced.
and DVD is 720x480, also interlaced.

apparently, vegas scaled the source without managing the fields, so you get a DVD with messed interlaced lines because of scaling down.

pls see this link for more detailed explanation with images:
http://www.100fps.com/

thx.

Hornady Setiawan · June 6th, 2006, 10:46 PM

Dear Douglas,

i'm sorry but i think u misunderstood my posts.

- i'm not challenging your expertise, infact i agree with you!

- i'm just asking how you think the camera manage fields regarding scaling down an interlaced source.

- i do not ignore the other aspects (color space, etc), infact i agree with u. I donot ignore them, i just want to focus it to my question, about the downconvertion method in camera regarding interlaced HDV.

- yes, my replies are not tested, since testing will take time, that's why in my posts i say " i suspect... " or " i think..." , yet i dont just make it up..., (humbly speaking) i'm a tech director, also a VFX compositor, 3D artist, also a sound engineer, was a multimedia teacher altho i've not written any book. Now i work proffesionally as a TD & postpro manager, doing feature films & tv series.

- i'm not working in DV. i'm just trying to answer Michael's & Fred's question here. I work with many formats, even from PC<>MACs. I did 1 feature film shot using Z1, recorded in 4:2:2 using HD-SDI converter from Z1 recorded in a DVCPRO HD deck.

All in all, please re-read my posts, i'm not confronting you, infact i agree with you, i just had a question for you.

best regards,
hornady.

Hornady Setiawan · June 6th, 2006, 11:53 PM

an example of misunderstanding:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle

How the camera does it, is first; it's never progressive, so I'm not sure why you're riding that horse.

i'm not riding that horse. I agree with you. I explained in my post, the camera does the field separation and then scale them down. In another word, the camera does the scaling in the field domain.

it's just a matter of different words towards the same answer.

my best regards,
hornady/

Mark Bryant · June 7th, 2006, 01:48 AM

Fred, and others who have seen "wavy footage" when rendering from Vegas:

In the project properties, what do you have the Deinterlace Method set to? I learnt from Laurence in the Vegas forum that if you have the deinterlace method set to "none" you get nasty artifacts. This is for a render to interlaced.... even though you actually aren't deinterlacing this seems to make a difference. Setting the Deinterlace Method to "Blend Fields" seems to fix it.

Mark

Fred Foronda · June 7th, 2006, 12:22 PM

Okay I have read some old threads and done practically everything that is said out there in these forum. From what I had been doing since day one I'll stick to it. I guess I can't get any better dvd out of it and will come to terms that its "the nature of the beast" kind of thing. I admit the footage looks awsome, just that it has some flaws probably not noticeable to the average Joe but I guess I am very meticulous. Not the whole footage is wavy or shaky..just certain areas depending on the objects and the movements. Thanks for a great forum.

June 6th, 2006, 10:12 PM	#37
Douglas Spotted Eagle VASST Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Stockton, UT Posts: 5,648	How the camera does it, is first; it's never progressive, so I'm not sure why you're riding that horse. Second, the actual method is proprietary. I know how it's done, but NDA precludes it from being discussed. Third, having done a LOT of testing for personal and professional use, using Vegas, AE/Algolith, and other tools for scaling, Vegas does a better job than the camera overall. Forgetting about the colorspace/compression is like saying "well....without the 450HP engine, the indy 500 car is still an Indy 500 car, it just doesn't go as fast." No, it's no longer an Indy 500 car. Are we supposed to forget about resolution, too, while we're forgetting about/ignoring color sampling? So...the additional value of more chroma is to be ignored? Sorry, at no point can I go along with your logic. I'm usually open-minded, but to say: ~you've not tested it in Vegas ~ignore 4:1:1/4:2:0 for PAL ~Work with DV rather than HD in CineForm all adds up to a lack of experience with the format and the output. On the other hand, I've easily got 2000 hours of tape from every HDV cam out there. And have converted most of it for SD delivery, along with HDCAM delivery. Finally, what if he wants to deliver in HD at some point in time? In-camera conversion obviates that option. Completely. If you've got the computer horsepower, and even suspect you'll ever want an HD version of the project, and aren't using GearShift, then you're simply nuts to convert in-camera. CineForm is by far the most elegant solution, and any other HDI is still a better solution. Better still is not downconverting, but rather UP converting at capture to a 4:2:2 uncompressed stream via a Decklink card. The difference, delivered to SD, is substantial. __________________ Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot Author, producer, composer Certified Sony Vegas Trainer http://www.vasst.com

June 5th, 2006, 04:01 PM	#33
Fred Foronda Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Hawaii Posts: 337	Going from CFHD file back to HDV looks identical from the original m2t. But going to DVDA is great but just that wavy artifacts during camera movements. Here are my steps when doing a project: Load m2t footage usuing Connect HD Load onto Vegas time line do editing Print back to HDV tape with the proper settings. Used "GOOD". Product looks identical with the original footage. Now to DVDA. I use the same render file that was render for tape and adjust the project properties settings for dvd (change template for nstc dv, non-progressive, blend fields...) I have been using "GOOD" instead of "BEST" because it takes to long to process. Am I missing something or doing something wrong? Thanks for everyone's input!!

June 5th, 2006, 06:10 PM	#35
Fred Foronda Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Hawaii Posts: 337	Sorry for the confusion but after I print to tape I use that same file (m2t) and render to go to dvd. I place it on Vegas timeline, hit tools,scripting, then batch render and I select the appropriate mpeg2 which is DVDA NSTC widescreen then I select the audio which is stereo dvd. Next I open that new rendered file into DVDA.

June 6th, 2006, 10:21 PM	#38
Hornady Setiawan Regular Crew Join Date: May 2005 Location: Jakarta, Indonesia Posts: 103	hi Fred, letme explain again in a different way, your m2t is 1440x1080 interlaced. and DVD is 720x480, also interlaced. apparently, vegas scaled the source without managing the fields, so you get a DVD with messed interlaced lines because of scaling down. pls see this link for more detailed explanation with images: http://www.100fps.com/ thx.

June 6th, 2006, 10:46 PM	#39
Hornady Setiawan Regular Crew Join Date: May 2005 Location: Jakarta, Indonesia Posts: 103	Dear Douglas, i'm sorry but i think u misunderstood my posts. - i'm not challenging your expertise, infact i agree with you! - i'm just asking how you think the camera manage fields regarding scaling down an interlaced source. - i do not ignore the other aspects (color space, etc), infact i agree with u. I donot ignore them, i just want to focus it to my question, about the downconvertion method in camera regarding interlaced HDV. - yes, my replies are not tested, since testing will take time, that's why in my posts i say " i suspect... " or " i think..." , yet i dont just make it up..., (humbly speaking) i'm a tech director, also a VFX compositor, 3D artist, also a sound engineer, was a multimedia teacher altho i've not written any book. Now i work proffesionally as a TD & postpro manager, doing feature films & tv series. - i'm not working in DV. i'm just trying to answer Michael's & Fred's question here. I work with many formats, even from PC<>MACs. I did 1 feature film shot using Z1, recorded in 4:2:2 using HD-SDI converter from Z1 recorded in a DVCPRO HD deck. All in all, please re-read my posts, i'm not confronting you, infact i agree with you, i just had a question for you. best regards, hornady.

June 7th, 2006, 01:48 AM	#41
Mark Bryant Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Bath, England Posts: 119	Fred, and others who have seen "wavy footage" when rendering from Vegas: In the project properties, what do you have the Deinterlace Method set to? I learnt from Laurence in the Vegas forum that if you have the deinterlace method set to "none" you get nasty artifacts. This is for a render to interlaced.... even though you actually aren't deinterlacing this seems to make a difference. Setting the Deinterlace Method to "Blend Fields" seems to fix it. Mark

June 7th, 2006, 12:22 PM	#42
Fred Foronda Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Hawaii Posts: 337	Okay I have read some old threads and done practically everything that is said out there in these forum. From what I had been doing since day one I'll stick to it. I guess I can't get any better dvd out of it and will come to terms that its "the nature of the beast" kind of thing. I admit the footage looks awsome, just that it has some flaws probably not noticeable to the average Joe but I guess I am very meticulous. Not the whole footage is wavy or shaky..just certain areas depending on the objects and the movements. Thanks for a great forum.