First a few questions:
What is your Project Preset?
Exactly how was the material shot? I assume NTSC 16:9, but could be wrong..
This is a total aside, and has nothing to do with your question/problem:
I assume that you are not cutting your Clips too tightly, and are leaving adequate Handles (basically spare Frames) for the later editing and the addition of Transitions in your new Project with these as source footage. Since you've been doing this for a bit, I'm guessing that you have already taken this into consideration, but wanted to mention it.
To expedite matters, I am going to assume that your Canon HV30 is delivering NTSC HDV 1080i (60 fields per second, 30 frames per second), MPEG-2, file extension assumed .mpeg.
You would select the Premiere Elements 7 project preset (new project dialog) = NTSC HDV HDV 1080i30. The description includes frame size = 1440 x 1080 and HD Anamorphic to stretch the video to 16:9 on display after encoding.
Two major considerations relating to what you see in the Edit Mode Monitor
A. Monitor Magnification Setting, Fit or 100%, and here I am not talking about the popular topic of quality; I am talking about how the video fits the template in the Monitor.
B. If you have checked or unchecked “Default Scale to Frame Size” in Edit Menu/Preferences/General.
Another major consideration is the default settings that you are going to see in File Menu/Export/Movie when you are using the Premiere Elements 7 project preset (new project dialog) = MTSC HDV HDV 1080i30. It is not going to be DV AVI with a file extension of .avi and with a frame size of 720 x 480 standard or widescreen. It is going to be:
File Extension = .mpeg
File Type = Compiler MPEG Proxy
Compressor = I-Frame Only MPEG
Frame Size will be that of the project preset (new project dialog) 1440 x 1080, and the description will include HD Anamorphic for 16:9.
This generalization holds for the other AVCHD and HDV choices. If you had used the project preset (new project dialog) = NTSC AVCHD Full HD1080i30, you would see essentially the same thing, major exceptions being, frame size 1920 x 1080 and square pixels.
All should be right with the world if you are setup as above and are using your HDV footage. You have confirmed that. Now when it gets to this non HDV footage, what exactly do you have? DV AVI 720 x 480 standard or widescreen or some other video format with a 720 x 480 frame size? Graphics? Let us just focus on a video file with frame size 720 x 480 that you bring into this Premiere Elements 7 project set up for HDV. What is the intent of the export with Work Area Bar technique…to save as a later addition to HDV project (1440 x 1080/HD Anamorphic) or to save as a DV AVI (720 x 480 standard or widescreen)? If it is the latter, then you would change default .mpeg setting to DV AVI in the File Menu/Export/Movie route.
But, if you want to use the export for insertion into this HDV project, then I would suggest:
1. With your project preset as above
2. Monitor Magnification on Fit
3. Edit Menu/Preferences/General/”Default Scale to Frame Size” unchecked
4. Scale your 720 x 480 to fit the Frame Size of the Template
5. Then do your File Menu/Export/Movie (default .mpeg settings) with your WorkArea Bar technique.
Then there should not be any surprises when you re-import the export.
I have not looked at this for quality, especially related to re-coding then or later, that is, .mpeg vs .avi export, so you could also look at export with setting for Microsoft AVI (not Microsoft DV AVI), setting frame size 1440 x 1080, video compression = none, HD anamorphic.
That is my thinking on the matter. Please check it out to make sure that I did not go off in the wrong direction and off the deep edge on this one.
always leave handles... learned with my early projects how important that is (was a shame).
Sorry that there was a bitter lesson along the way, but glad that you now consider such.
I've seen too many, who edit tightly and then add Transitions, only to want to change those, and not loose any more Frames.
Thanks for verifying,
Thanks for the thoughtful response....
*** Yep, the Camera is shooting (onto tape) at NTSC 1080 30 FPS.
*** New project settings are as you stated box
*** All the settings were as you noted . . . except, after reading your post I unchecked the "default to frame size" box.
Exporting the clip worked well only when I selected "uncompressed microsoft avi" format. I brought the copy of the clips back onto the time line and compred to the original and they looked as good (or pretty close) to the original. Now rendering before the copy was made... that took a little time . . . and then I needed to render when the copy is placed on the timeline. The price we pay
The other formats ("microsoft avi" and "microsoft dv avi") had issues .. . size was reduced and quality not as good.
Most of the assets on this project will be HD video and JPEG stills. I will be incorporating soem no HD video and will try some of the suggestions when I get to that point.
For HD material, you will take a quality hit with any of the DV formats/CODEC's, as you will be downsampling to SD. You might want to try Lagarith, which is a lossless CODEC. I have not used it with HD material, but you have some comparison files to measure it against. It will reduce the size of the resultant files (AVI Uncompressed), and might give you everything that you need.
If you have not seen this ARTICLE, it might give you some useful tips for your still images. Now, it's basically talking about SD Assets, so you will want to bump things up to HD resolutions, but the theory is still the same.
Thanks for the recommendation on the CODEC, Hunt.... I'll need to play around with a few of these.
On the stills . . . I'm first figuring out the video (making needed changes to workflow to support HD). I'll get to stills later. I'm expecting fewer issues with them. Thanks for the link. Your photo workflow and asset mgmt is similar to my own (did you read Kelby's DAM book?). I shoot NEF, convert to DNG. I sometimes keep the NEFs but always keep the DNG (my source images). Then, depending on finished format, I'll keep PSDs and / or JPGs. On thing I intend to try . . . instead of actions in Photoshop, I might use a Lightroom library, then do a mass export. I find lightroom is the editor of choice for me the past couple years. I only use PS for the ones requiring lots of work (or ones I want to play with).
I've got one of Scott's PS books, but it's an oldie from the introduction of CS, or CS2, and more on techniques. It's similar to Ben Wilmore's Studio Techniques for about that version of PS.
Other than working on the beta of Lightroom, I really have not explored the full-working version. Many use it and love it. Maybe it's time that I go and investigate it. I'll probably be upgrading to the full CS4 Master Collection soon, so I'll pick up Lightroom and maybe alter my workflow.
I'm like you in the basic workflow. Shoot NEF's, and then archive to DNG. The NEF's are processed into .PSD's and these are then my "working files." I manipulate many, saving my fully Layered .PSD's as intermediates. When ready to go to Video, I will resize those, often Flattening, if I do not need to animate Layers. These resized, usually Flattned, .PSD's are Batch converted into my Video Project's Still Images folder, but stay as .PSD's, just sized as is required. I never work with .JPEG's, unless my wife has shot something on one of her little cameras, or when a client needs something to go to the Web. On occasion, a client will furnish me with .JPEG material, for which no other version exists. If I have to work on these, I end up with .PSD's. If I use them raw, I leave the JPEG's alone.
As for the resizing, I see enough differences in the results, of resizing in PS vs letting the NLE do it. Others do not see enough of a difference to bother, and just go with the result from the NLE. That is the editor's call. Maybe I spent too many decades doing still work for advertising, for very critical art directors, but I want the best at all costs, even an extra step, or two. For big reductions, or inceases, I'll set my resizing Actions to stair-step interpolate, usually in 10% increments. This is much more critical when resizing up, but I can see a slight benefit, when going down. Again, many others do not, so they cannot be bothered with running an Aciton multiple times to get to the finished result.
Good luck, and I hope that things progress nicely for you.
PS - I have to upgrade soon, as my wife just picked up a Canon G-10, and its RAW files cannot be processed in the version of ARC that I have. The newer ARC requires CS4, which I have yet to upgrade to. Now, I either have to process wife's RAW's in the Canon utility, or have her shoot JPEG's. Heck, there is always some reason to get the upgrade to PS...
Hunt - - -
While I shoot Nikon for my large camera, I carry a G-9 for my point&shoot (selected this camera because at the time it was only one of two P&S that shot RAW). Its images fit into my workflow fine. Your wife's G-10 should be similar.
I think that about all that Canon did between the G-9 and G-10 was bump up the price!
Several good friends, one a Nikon shooter and the other a Canon shooter, recommended the G-9 to replace my wife's dying S60. They were even going so far as to leave their DSLR's home and just carrying the G-9's. One even shot some HDR interior architectural work with his, and it looked great. By the time I got around to getting the camera, the G-10 was out.
I've taken it on some recent trips, where I just did not want to schlep the Nikons, and have not been disappointed. I just need to get busy getting a version of PS that will take the new ACR module, so my wife can shoot Canon RAW with it.
I still can't get used to those itty-bitty cards. Heck, my contact lenses are larger than those...
Only "real" issue that I see is that the monitor screen gets a lot of fingerprints. With my Nikons, I have a clip-on cover, to offer some protection. Note to self: keep fingers OFF of the monitor!
the screen's durable. For a while I had a clingy cover. That became a bother and I tossed it.
the image quality is good. low light is a challenge... sensor is so small that any ISO above 200 is noisy.
i do find that travelling with a small gorilla pod (and using self-timer in place of cable release) there have been many times when I've left my DSLR bag (and 15 pounds) at home.
You might wish to explore Neat Image. It is available as a stand-alone, as a plug-in for Photoshop and as a combo of both. I have found it to be a lifesaver in low-light situations. I also use their video Effect, Neat Video. After I apply it, I normally hit the image/footage with a tiny bit of Unsharp Mask. Note: always apply after the Neat Image, or Neat Video.
As an example on how well Neat Image works, I had a 4x5 vertical shot, that I scanned at 1000ppi and worked on. It went to a 12' x 9' display. Even with the high-rez scan, the Ektachrome's grain (E100 SW) was noticable. With Neat Image, and a hint of Unsharp Mask, the print looked like Kodachrome! The printer was blown away by the smoothness of the image, and pressed me for the film that I had shot. He suspected E100 8x10, but still could not find any grain.
Love both programs,
Okay . . . UPDATED CHALLENGE
Save the clips . . . ctrl + M, "microsoft uncompressed avi",, etc.
Works okay, but the files are MASSIVE
Example . . .file (HD from the Canon Vixia 30) 10 secs long.... "movie clip" as captured from the camera in HD ... 35 MB. "Video clip" (from my copying work area bar) same duration 1.2+ GB
Also, in at least one example, the copy has noticable artifacts (black pixel on white colors) ???