This content has been marked as final. Show 15 replies
Final outputs don't really depend on Aspect HD or native editing. Export what you need for your web page or DVD.
What are you looking to accomplish?
I guess what I am trying to accomplish is to use the HD footage and get the best results for web and desktop use.
I realize it is a trial and error process but it would be interesting how people use Aspect HD (which preset) for the best results for web use for example.
Aspect HD helps you edit. Adobe Media Encoder helps you export for web and desktop use. Personally, I suggest either Flash or Windows Media for your web site.
WMV for desktop.
WMV is an interesting choice. I will try that out.
And as far as 30p or 24p, is there an advantage regarding web or desktop quality viewing?
The advantage to 24p is that you cut the file size by one fifth. It depends on your footage if it looks good or not.
I find it an overkill to start from an HD source if your viewer is either the Web, a standard DVD or your desktop. SD video is very good looking for any TV less then 27". It's only with large screen TVs that HD becomes really worthwhile. (and even then 50% is just marketing Hype unless you shoot very carefully and export to a Blu-Ray media). As evident from reading this forum going from an HD source to a SD media is no picnic unless you are ready to settle with somewhat reduced quality. As for 24p in my opinion it is a step backward. We should try to achieve 30p or even 60p on the way to 120p. This is similar to going back to black and white movie: it has a certain nostalgic look only to be used in special cases.
I see your point on the web but on a desktop with a high resolution laptop, the 720 x 480 seems tiny. And yes with DVDs you can get full screen but I never thought the quality was very impressive.
Besides now I at least have all my footage in HD for future use when people have bigger screens.:)
We shoot and master in HD and output both Blu-ray and DVD with spectacular results. Clients mistakenly think that the DVD IS high def, and they are surprised when I inform them that it's not a hi def disc, but an ordinary DVD that's been mastered from high def material.
We've been achieving excellent results with high def footage now since last August, when the combination of processes was finally figured out. It looks WAY better than mastering in SD for DVD output.
If you're shooting high def for Blu-ray, the only way the real advantage of it is going to be realized is if you use a full raster camera that actually SHOOTS and RECORDS the full 1920x1080 image. No interpolated SD image sensers with pixel shift trickery to fake HD pictures. Our most recent Blu-ray project is a mix of HDV and CineAlta full HD footage and the cuts back and forth between cameras is embarassing--the CineAlta footage looks like someone removed the glass from the window, whilest the HDV footage looks like someone took lower res footage and scaled it up, and it looks like anything with color in it is smudged--overall, the HDV footage is like looking through glass with Vaseline smudges on it, compared to the CineAlta footage. In fact, the 720P output from CineAlta has the same amount of resolved detail as the 1080P HDV footage.
The bottom line? If you plan to utilize the full benefit of Blu-ray, you need to make sure your source footage is full-raster HD.
I am not ready for Blue-ray yet. I just got the camera and software 2 weeks ago. I am just trying to get better results than what my old sony camcorder was doing. AND I AM! I took Steve's advice and exported via Adobe Media Encoder to .wmv. Wow! Looks great.
I will worry about blue-ray maybe in two years or so. For now I am happy with my Canon HV20. One step at a time.
Besides by then full-raster HD will be old.
>Clients mistakenly think that the DVD IS high def, and they are surprised when I inform them that it's not a hi def disc, but an ordinary DVD that's been mastered from high def material.
To me this comment means one or more of the following:
1-The so-called difference between HD and SD for screen size 32" or less is a lot of marketing hype that most people cannot see until told.
2-The SD camcorders do not deliver the full potential of the standard DVD format. In other words this is the weak link, not the SD format or the DVD.
3-Your HD camera is a lot better (and more expensive) then SD camcorders.
4-The TV pictures that people are used to (from cable or over the air broadcast) are so poor that regular DVD looks sensational.
The change from VHS to DVD was a real quality gain. The move from DVD to Blu-Ray (e.g. from SD to HD) is mainly a marketing tool to sell large screen TVs (where the difference becomes visible).
On the audio side, the attempt to move people from CD to Audio DVD is not succeeding. Actually people are quite happy to move backward to MP3. Not that I suggest to go back in the case of video. But may-be: the popularity of small screens (cell phone, i-Phone and the web) is a denial of the search for HD. People are interested in the content first.
>If you plan to utilize the full benefit of Blu-ray, you need to make sure your source footage is full-raster HD.
Now that is a point similar to what I have been trying to make in these forums. In the SD world, we've never had anything but full raster imaging devices. That same should hold true for every HD camera out there. People keep buying flawed cameras, camera makers will keep making them.
I also have to agree with Pierre's analysis. Having seen DVDs produced from HDV cameras, I have to say that my SD DVDs look near as good under normal conditions, and even better under certain conditions, mainly where the HDV format introduces artifacts not present in DV source. But then again, I am a practiced observer.
Standard definition DVDs created from HDV material will look worse than footage shot on DV in many cases where fast movement is a problem. On most DVDs it will look about the same, and on some very slow and highly detailed images, HDV can certainly look better than most SD.
The glass in the camera makes a difference, and do some shooting styles.
On the other hand, HDV shown on a 60" or bigger HDTV can be dramatic. Much better than the same footage shot with most SD cameras.
Steven - do you still use your FX1 ? If so - how would you rate it compared to p2 /ex cam's. (in terms of significant differences when it comes to output quality)
I still use the FX1 and I have not compared it to the material from other cameras. I am not a full time Pro. I don't have lots of different cameras.
My guess is that the newer cameras that shoot higher data rates are probably better quality, given the same lenses and shooters.