This content has been marked as final. Show 24 replies
Have you tried a constant bit rate of say 8mbs or higher? I never use a vbr due to quaility issues. To me it never looks good. I always notice the parts that was encloded at 1.5.
I'll try that, but I think it's more a problem of the downscaling in premiere, not the bitrate. Too low a bitrate would cause MPEGw motion artifacts, that's not what looks bad, it is a general softness in the video that looks to be a result of bad downscaling.
If you start with one apple and cut it down in size to 1/4 of an apple, how do you think it looks? Like an apple? Or more like 1/4 of an apple.? If you then spread the 1/4 over your plate, how does it look?
Try exporting to DV AVI then letting Encore do the transcoding. Do not bring back into Premiere just take that straight into Encore.
Keep your field settings as they were.
HDV to DV will always look soft when compared to the source.
>If you then spread the 1/4 over your plate, how does it look?
Ooh! Ooh! I know!
"Like applesauce" ;)
I do not think it is the downscaling. You are starting out with more information then standard NTSC video.How could it look worse then regular NTSC? Have you compared it to regular NTSC video? Yes the quaility would be worse compared to HD but not to NTSC.
I've seen HDV source scaled back to NTSC that looks worse than NTSC, simply because of the MPEG compression during the original capture, which is not present in a DV capture.
Audie, it is downscaling, you start out with more information yes true WHEN viewed on a HD TV. But it is lost when downscaling to SD.
Harm provided a perfect explanation of this.
I understand the downscaling but if you maintain the high quality thru your process you will never see any video that is lower quality then NTSC.The HD camera's shot in higher res then any NTSC camera. So you will lose information but it will still look better then NTSC. If he took in HD video into PP and it looked good on the timeline and the only time it looked bad was when sent it to DVD.It is more then likely his VBR setting which everyone loves to use. But more then likely noone understands what happens then or has never done any testing to see a constant bit rate is better.
> If he took in HD video into PP and it looked good on the timeline and the only time it looked bad was when sent it to DVD.It is more then likely his VBR setting which everyone loves to use.
No! It looks bad on DVD because DVD is 720 x 480 (NTSC).
> The HD camera's shot in higher res then any NTSC camera.
But unless you have a Hi Def TV you will not see the resolution.
CBR is used up to an hour of footage thereafter VBR will handle it better.
VBR is used only in consumer or prosumer world. In the broadcast world we use Constant bit rate. You will never see VBR for Sports.Even in satelite TV you will see Constant bit rate.Yes the quality is lower on Satelite TV then cable but that is due to them trying to fit to many channles in one transponder. So ever channle has only 2.5mbs to use instead of 3mbs or higher. The new HD sat. are more powerful and can handle more.
My point is you will have more then enough resolution for NTSC to look good, due to the fact you have more information. It is not like you are using a consumer camera that only has 300 lines then turn around and try to use it for broadcast.
Yes but the fact remains that you are not seeing all the original information recorded by the camera. All transcoding issues and ideas set aside if you simply take your HD footage and view on an SD TV it will not look as good as on an HD TV.
It might be a tiny bit sharper but that's it.
I never said it would.
I said it would not look worse then regular NTSC video. If you used high quality steps thru out your process you will never see video worse then NTSC.
>Even in satellite TV you will see Constant bit rate
Both DirecTV and DISH Network use VBR compression on most channels. Pay per View and other Premiums may be the only exception.
> If you used high quality steps thru out your process you will never see video worse then NTSC.
Yes this is expected. I just think the OP is:
a) Doing something majorly wrong or,
b) Is so used to HD that when he see's it downconverted to SD he is shocked with it and wonders how we were ever happy with SD. :-)
Patrick how bad is the quality?
Are you sure. I know that cram about 8 channels in a 15mb transponer But I thought for sure it was constant. I know I seen artifacts in the video but i thinking it was due to the low bandwidth per channel. Cause we would use nothing lower then 4.5 per channel on ours when we sent it thru to the bird.
I am going to have to ask some of their eng.
I called and asked them back when their signals went bad because of the cramming. They said VBR.
Thanks for the replies...
I'm a videophile and avid HD buff, and a home theater journalist, so yes my standards are high...
All I'm saying is that I have seen NTSC DVDs that were SOURCED from a HD master that looked GREAT, you can tell the orig. source was HD, not NTSC. An example of this, if anyone has seen the DVD concert, "Peter Frampton, live in Detroit." I have both the HD and the DVD versions; of course the DVD is softer but it looks BETTER than other DVDs (video-sourced) that were shot in SD.
So, I suppose, I was expecting "Frampton-quality" video on my DVDs downscaled from HDV in Premiere; instead I was getting distinctly soft video. It's not the bitrate, I am encoding at 8mpbs, plently for SD, it's the downconversion.
I tried last night a new option - Ppro Frameserving 1440x1080 AVI (Lagarith) to TMPGExpress 4.0, then TMPG encoding it into an 8mpbs MPEG-2 DVD format at 720x480. This looks quite a bit better. But still not up to what I was expecting, I am going to experiment more, esp. with bringing the HD file right into Encore and letting it do the downconversion.
Reminds me, am I stupid or are there no settings within Encore for the DVD quality controls (bitrate, etc?) I can't find them anywhere! (But then again I have used Premiere a lot, just getting started in Encore).
Thanks again for an active discussion!
>it looks BETTER than other DVDs (video-sourced) that were shot in SD.
How so? The resolution limits are identical. The color reproduction won't change? What is it that you feel looks "better" about it?
I just read an article on this in DV or some other mag (sorry, I tried to find a link but couldn't) and they did a side by side comparison of footage shot SD and HD. They downconverted the HD to SD and it was sharper than the original SD which would help with the look of the image. I guess starting with more is always better.
>Reminds me, am I stupid or are there no settings within Encore for the DVD quality controls (bitrate, etc?) I can't find them anywhere! (But then again I have used Premiere a lot, just getting started in Encore).
I believe you can set the bit rates by right clicking the video file in the project window and then going to transcode settings in Encore, but I'm not at my video editing station at the moment.
I have done a lot of experimenting with HD-->SD and had settled on H.264 out from PPro CS3 and downconverting in Encore to DVD standards, using 7mb VBR. I will try your workflow and compare.
Want a good example? Look at the SD DVDs of "Planet Earth" series. Shot HD. AMAZING even in SD.
Or the blockbuster Iron Man dvd. it is SD but it looks AMAZING even blown up onto a 92 inch screen with a projector and NO upconverter Dvd player. Still looks better than most SD material. The Conversions on those are BETTER than other conversions. Patrick wants to know how to do that. So do I.
I am pretty sure it was shot in 720p60, so it easy pretty easy to make very good SD from this.