Color correct final SD output, not the HD master?

Just double-checking:

I'm cutting a TV spot that was shot DVCProHD 720p24. It's going to be broadcast on satellite and the final delivery can be either PAL mini-DV or PAL Betacam. I'll want to color-correct the spot AFTER I downconvert, yes? The HD color space being different from SD.

Also, I'm planning to downconvert to an 8-bit UC sequence before laying off to tape; will there much difference between DV and Beta at that point? DV would be better, no?

JK

_______________________________________
SCQT! Self-contained QuickTime ? pass it on!

John K Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also, I'm planning to downconvert to an 8-bit UC
> sequence before laying off to tape; will there
> much difference between DV and Beta at that point?
> DV would be better, no?

Since it hasn't seen DV compression yet, and it will certainly see some sort of compression yet, I would say BetaSP is by far the best choice. DV would only set in motion the mad cycle of artifacting that would be enhanced in many transmission streams. Hang on to that low-compression bliss as long as you can.

Yes, color correct after you downconvert to 8-bit uncompressed.

How will you be doing the NTSC-PAL conversion?

Beta is better quality than DV. Deliver a Beta tape.


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

OK, Beta over DV, got it.

Quote

How will you be doing the NTSC-PAL conversion?

That's a good question... I was going to try a few options. One would be using Compressor for both the downconvert and format conversion in 1 or 2 steps. Or maybe downconvert to NTSC 8-bit first and then use Nattress to conver to PAL. What would you recommend? It's not sync sound BTW, so I can always go back after it's converted and paste in the music so it doesn't get distorted...

JK

_______________________________________
SCQT! Self-contained QuickTime ? pass it on!

> Beta is better quality than DV. Deliver a Beta tape.

I seem to remember Graeme Nattress offering the opposite opinion. Hope I'm not quoting hiim wrong -- maybe he could clarify?


www.derekmok.com

That would depend on the circumstances of production and delivery. If production was substantially DV without a lot of rendering / recompression, then DV would be the clear choice. But this baby is clean, don't mess it up now!

As for the conversion, I would think frame rate and scaling should happen in one step, so both conversions benefit from the full resolution of the original.

It's NTSC 24p, so workflow to PAL is to take the 24p to cinema tools, and use that to "conform" to 25p. From there, output to tape.

Given you've shot widescreen, DV is most definately the better option as Betacam doesn't support anamorphic widescreen, whereas DV does. Beta doesn't have enough horizontal resolution to get away with the anamorphic squeeze. Hey, it doesn't have enough resolution full stop, being about 3/4 of that of DV.

Given DV is PAL in this case, it is most definately superior to BetaSP. But overall preference would be to master to DigiBeta.

Graeme

Given you've shot widescreen, DV is most
> definately the better option as Betacam doesn't
> support anamorphic widescreen, whereas DV does.
> Beta doesn't have enough horizontal resolution to
> get away with the anamorphic squeeze. Hey, it
> doesn't have enough resolution full stop, being
> about 3/4 of that of DV.

I completely missed that this was PAL. Graeme is probably right, although I would hazard that if you really factor in hacked color resolution and especially artifacting, in the end even wonderful PAL DV will end up on the losing end, especially after additional compressions. Unless you're literally talking about giving them oxide Beta as opposed to BetaCam SP.

In NTSC anyway, BetaSP has been used for anamorphic production almost as long as it's been around. It's pretty good stuff.

In Messed Up NTSC Land I think it's pretty clear BetaSP still wins by far. I stoop to even use DV for acquisition, but I would never deliver DV if Beta SP was an option, unless I knew that DV was part of the actual delivery system.

I do remember hearing (and I think this was Graeme again) that DV does has slightly higher resolution, especially in PAL. It's 4:2:0 vs. 3:1:1 for Beta SP, right?

In any case, I need to double-check the specs as they may have really asked for an old Beta tape, not an SP. So it's DV for sure then.

I've never sent anamorphic material in for broadcast before, and it's going through a middleman to get the voiceover translated and reassembled before broadcast -- it will be showing on the Israeli Network satellite channel. Is there a chance someone in the chain will screw it up and it will play back squeezed into 4:3? Should I just drop it into a 4:3 sequence just for safety?

JK

_______________________________________
SCQT! Self-contained QuickTime ? pass it on!

You need to ask the broadcaster about widescreen delivery. For instance, if it were the BBC they'd demand anamorphic DigiBeta.

As for the BetaSP - it has 75% of the luma resolution of DV. Yes, 3/4, or put it another way, it's fuzzy in the luma. Compared to NTSC DV is has slightly higher chroma sampling, but that's not enough to offset the higher noise levels and lower luma rez. On a TV broadcast you don't tend to notice chroma rez, but you really quickly notice luma rez. That's why it's unsuitable for anamorphic use as that needs extra luma rez to spread the, say 720x540 image over 1024x540 pixels. If you're already soft at 4:3, going to 16:9 with a stretch just makes the image soft as hell.

Graeme

[www.nattress.com] - Plugins for FCP-X