What not to do when editing HDV natively.

Don't do anything except straight cuts. When you're finished, save it.

Then open up a new project and downconvert to your favorite format and edit away.

When you're finished replace the low rez shots with the HDV shots and then lay back to HDV tape.

What do you think of this workflow?

Having to edit three times and change formats twice?

Not my cup of tea.


www.derekmok.com

sounds like an ass load of work, just to work with a format thats flawed to begin with...

What they said. Plus, there's nothing to be gained by downconverting HDV. It's only running at around 12GB an hour in the first place. If anything, upconvert to DVCProHD from the outset and edit in that.

Clay

> If anything, upconvert to DVCProHD from the outset and edit in that.

And then stay there. It's been said many times in here that HDV is not a mastering format.


www.derekmok.com

but, but, but ... hdv is 1080i and DVCproHD is 760 or something :-) When up rezing, don't you get more bang for the buck?

Quote

but, but, but ... hdv is 1080i and DVCproHD is 760 or something

filmman...you REEEAAAAALLLLY need to do some homework before posting. TAKE A CLASS (please). DVCPRO HD comes in 1080i50, 1080i60, 720p50, 720p60.

Your workflow makes no sense at all to me. DVCPRO HD upconversion & edit that way is the way to go, IMHO.

Some of us HAVE to work with "flawed" ftg. Every format that has compression introduced into it is "flawed" in some way. We make due with what we have & make pretty pictures

- Joey

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Read here: [www.uemedia.net]



For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]

I read the article, Ben. It clarified a lot of things. Joey is right; it takes a lot of research to figure this thing out. It's really a mess ... unless someone is making a living with it.

So it's really comes down to 1920 pixels -- that's the number apparently that everybody is shooting for ... and then there's compression and such ....

So K2 is really better than all these formats -- a plain 35mm frame that can be telecined at K2 or K4. The rest is just digital fancy footwork :-)

But getting back to the HDV vs DVCproHD vs HD -- it seems that HDV, if handled well, can generate a full HD movie and beat the cost of a $100,000 set up. Although it's not fun for editors to have to tinker with it; I understand that. It's no money out of anyone's pocket, let's get the best format :-)

Also, it seems that DVCproHD is the most cost effective, except for the P2 capacity and ease of download issues.

I have a Z1, and for me it's a matter of doing the best I can with it. I need an intelligent workflow. What I'm suggesting is that perhaps if one has to work with HDV, it's best to edit simply with it, because frankly the G5 FCP5 crashes too often when doing anything more than straight cuts with it.

I don't like to right-away convert to a lesser format (though it may be more stable) when I can cut a whole movie in HDV natively and then lay back to camera. I can then take the tape to a facility and output a full HD master from it. If I'm wrong tell me, please.

Then there is also the miranda.com card with which one can convert HDV to full HD. It's $3,000 and that's the only reason I haven't bought it. But I expect some other program will come along and this expense can be reduced.

Also, Bluray DVD burners are already out at $800. So we can make HD DVDs -- right?

i really dont know what all the chatter is about as far as editing HDV goes. when i first started my very first HDV testing it was with a z1 doing 1080i60 captured to an external firewire drive and pretty much the ONLY thing about it that i liked was that the overall edit workflow was identical to standard DV - aside of course from the no fw monitoring bit...

what i didnt like about it was the crappy SD dvd downconverts, the horriffic way it handled any thing in motion, and the equally crappy looking alpha graphic overlays... but ive already done way too much HDV bashing, so ill leave it at that.

"but ive already done way too much HDV bashing, so ill leave it at that."

-Oh no please continue.

Johan Polhem
Motion Graphics
www.johanpolhem.com

Well, that's my point, Wayne. My advice is not to do any motion or anything with HDV. Just edit the picture using straight cuts. That way there will be no problems. So what I'm trying to figure out is AFTER one finishes editing the picture and dialogue -- can one convert the HDV to SD and then do all the effects and titles, THEN substitute the HDV footage in place of the SD -- is that possible? Will it work? Is it a smart workflow?

Because if it is then it means one would end up with an HDV finished project, lay it back to HDV tape and up rez it to full HD. Thus pulling all the advantages of shooting with a $5,000 camera and ending up with results identical to the Sony 900 camera footage. LOL

> My advice is not to do any motion or anything with HDV. Just edit the picture using straight
> cuts. That way there will be no problems.

He's not talking about motion graphics. He's talking about movement of objects and people within a shot. Your shot could be dead locked down and HDV can still give you hideous motion artifacts. I've had to edit a medium C-U look like it's been shot at a different shutter speed. Even worse, not all instances of the shot had the issue, so it's even worse when you have to cut back to it.

I'm pretty firmly in Wayne's "I Hate HDV" camp.


www.derekmok.com

filmman Wrote:
-- can one convert the HDV to SD and then
> do all the effects and titles, THEN substitute the
> HDV footage in place of the SD -- is that
> possible? Will it work? Is it a smart workflow?

For one thing, you can't effectively mix HDV and SD on the same timeline. One will need to be letterboxed or anamorphically fixed to the current codec. SD has more color space than does HDV and moving 4:2:0 into 4:2:2 is going to cause color problems, even with reduced pixels.

> Because if it is then it means one would end up
> with an HDV finished project, lay it back to HDV
> tape and up rez it to full HD. Thus pulling all
> the advantages of shooting with a $5,000 camera
> and ending up with results identical to the Sony
> 900 camera footage.

Yeah, we all wish it could be that simple. All the movies shot with video are starting out with a camera that can capture a boat load of pixels per frame and then working backward for that. You just can't go little to big.

Let's put artifacts aside. Why talk of artificats if I don't have any? I mean, I know not to do flash pans; I'm not shooting the Indianopolis 500 with my Sony Z1.

I also know that there are some people here who hate HDV, etc.

Okay.

But, for the thousands of people who shoot with the Sony Z1 -- let's face it, it's a popular camera -- why not edit the HDV in a simple manner, then save the edit, and THEN do the special effects, filter grading and title. Because then FCP5 won't crash, and if it crashes we have the edited version saved in another project.

So, I agree there are problems with editing HDV. That's why I'm asking what would be the best workflow for HDV, so that the crashes don't force one to re-edit the whole movie all over again. If there's a way to do the effects and titles separately -- AND WHAT IS THAT WORKFLOW? That's what I need your insight into. Please, understand, I'm asking for your help with a problem I'm having, a problem that many people are having ...

Just to say, "get out of HDV as soon as you can" is not appropriate advice to people who have HDV cameras. I'm sorry, but I need to know...

Thanks :-)

filmman,

DVCProHD is the codec, P2 is a recording device. You don't need to ever touch a P2 card to edit in DVCProHD. Upconvert as suggested and your good to go.

Quote

filmman said:
Don't do anything except straight cuts. When you're finished, save it.

That, to, would be incorrect. You don't wait until you are finished to save. You should be saving every few moves manually (Command/S) or set your AutoSave accordingly. I can't emphasize this enough: YOU CAN NEVER SAVE ENOUGH.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Hey Filmman, here are three short answers to your question. I have been where you are and I hope this helps. The method you describe is interesting but could run into weird settings and time issues. Look at these and know that they are tested and true:

1.) Edit just in HDV all of the way.

PRO: lower cost, cuts only keeps good looks.
CON: using a dual G5 to edit a big HDV Sequence feels like editing a big complex DV Sequence on a G3 circa 1999. Cant view or color correct on an HDTV. Rendering effects will re-compress in a very lossy codec.

2.) Down-convert to Anamorphic (16x9 widescreen) DV in the camera while you capture over FireWire, edit in an anamorphic DV Sequence, and then, after picture lock, make an ONLINE HDV Sequence, throw away your DV media, and re-capture all of your material in HDV, then out put back to tape.

PRO: lower cost, easier to edit, you can make fantastic DVDs right away (even ones with anamorphic files that look good on widescreen TVs). You can see your stuff on a TV. You can choose to not ONLINE and just be happy with your nice standard def show.
CON: the final render pass in the HDV Sequence will take a long time and not look so hot.

3.) buy a $1000 Blackmagic or $1500 AJA Kona card for your PCI-Express G5 and capture from your camera over Component analog cables to the DVCPRO-HD codec directly! Do everything else in DVCPRO-HD and then make a final high quality DVCPRO-HD Quicktime file of your Sequence. Then either take this file to a post or dub house to output to DVCPRO-HD tape for hundreds of dollars, or put into an HDV Sequence as one clip and output to HDV tape -- or just leave it on your hard drive ;-). Yes, putting it back into an HDV timeline re-compresses it badly but at least the FX and color were finished in a better environment and are treated like a raw clip now.

[One side note for this is the inexpensive Blackmagic Intensity card for $250. But you have to have HDMI connector on your camera and you do not.]

PRO: you get out of HDV as soon as possible. rendered effects and color look much better. smoother timeline performance. you can monitor your timeline on an HDTV with the card.
CON: it costs more money (but not nearly as much as you were saying!!) Deciding on how to distribute your work is tricky right now.

At home, I use method #2 and leave it in Standard Def Anamorphic for right now (and distribute on anamorphic DVD. This makes fantastic standard def DVDs that blow up nicely on HDTVs. In other words, I dont even finish home projects in an HD ONLINE yet. But I have the original Sequence and the original HDV camera tapes, so I can always make it later with little effort -- it kind of depends on what my friends and family have in their living room to watch it on in the future (Blu-ray, HD-DVD, media PC, ect).

At work, we use method #3 and the client pays to have the DVCPRO-HD file transfered to HDCAM or DVCPRO-HD tape.

So HDV format is only used for ACQUISITION and not editing in both cases.

I hope this helps.

-Christopher

> I can't emphasize this enough: YOU CAN NEVER SAVE ENOUGH.

Unless your project file or media just got corrupted right in front of your eyes!

Then that "left-hand save twitch" could be a demoniac problem.


www.derekmok.com

Thanks, Wayne, Clay, Johan, Ben for your comments.

Thanks, Christopher for explaining it to me once more from the perspective of a filmmaker. Now I understand that DVCproHD is the best way to go. Shane has been saying it all along. I've just not been listening. I guess I just didn't understand it well enough. Thanks for taking the trouble.

Thanks, Derek. Thank you, John, for your patience. And thank you, Joey, for that tip about saving. I actually do "save as" frequently so I won't overload the Scratch Disks.

Sounds as if you're already convinced.

bob rice
frameworx media

No, Bob, it's just that HDV isn't behaving well in FCP5. I found out I'm getting good results editing HDV natively, but without adding any effects or titles -- just straight cuts. When outputting through DVD SP, I found the best way was to do a QT Conversion to uncompressed self-contained .mov and then compress in the Compressor 2 to the appropriate size needed for the 4.7 GB DVD disk.

According to the article the Ben posted, HDV is a viable format and can result in better ouput than DVCproHD. The engineers at Sony aren't exactly slouches.

What I was hoping to learn was not a way around HDV, but a way to work with HDV at its best potential.

One way I can think of is to place the uncompressed .mov I generated via QT Conversion back in a new FCP5 project and then add the effects and titles. I don't know if this is feasible. I haven't tried it yet.

The best I've gotten so far out of this thread is that DVCproHD is superior to HDV and that going to this codec right-away is up-rezing in fact, and that this is the best quality. This is where I'm not 100% convinced but because the gurus at LAFCUP have spoken in favor of this I have to go along with it :-) I know on which side my bread it buttered. LOL

<< but without adding any effects or titles>>

That part I don't really get, so somewhat curious. You shouldn't have any problem getting transitions or type to look good. The workflow between HDV and Motion in HDV, for example, is actually very fast, does not even require an initial render, and should be giving you very crisp-looking graphics. What have you been monitoring HDV on?

Clay

Hey Filmman, going to DVCPRO-HD is not really up-rezzing. Both HDV and DVCPRO-HD have 1080i formats (and both cheat some of that resolution!). In fact, HDV uses more pixels than DVCPRO-HD. So you are really cross-rezzing.

But its the quality of the "space" the format lives in that makes DVCPRO-HD so attractive. It lives in a less compressed, higher color-space, and less computer processor intensive world. AND there are industry standard machines, tapes, and workflows already out there supporting the format.

So: more quality AND easier for the system to run.

-Christopher

Thanks, Christopher -- okay.

And, Clay, sometimes FCP5 disappears suddenly as soon as I click on Boris 3D to begin a title. Poof, it's gone. So I don't dare do anything else but straight cuts. As for Motion, I rarely use it (because I haven't learned it yet), and then only out of FCP; i.e., using the tab and the few options there are.

I am very interested in #2



"----2.) Down-convert to Anamorphic (16x9 wide screen) DV in the camera while you capture over Fire Wire, edit in an anamorphic DV Sequence, and then, after picture lock, make an ONLINE HDV Sequence, throw away your DV media, and re-capture all of your material in HDV, then out put back to tape.

PRO: lower cost, easier to edit, you can make fantastic DVDs right away (even ones with anamorphic files that look good on wide screen TVs). You can see your stuff on a TV. You can choose to not ONLINE and just be happy with your nice standard def show.
CON: the final render pass in the HDV Sequence will take a long time and not look so hot-----"


i have been editing hdv, the camera that was use for filming is one of the smaller sony hdv ones (sorry don't know the model from the top of my head)


Can i down convert w any hdv sony camera or is it something from the Z1, also when ytou mention the con why a render(other than transitions and effects) if you are capturing native hdv and replacing the shots?

I am interested in this because I don't have a g5 at home but i can capture like this work on my old g4 and when I am done go back to the G5 and finalize my edit and output, does this make sense to anybody?


thanks for the info and sharing the knowledge!



J. García
phvx.com

Im not sure if your model down-converts to DV. Check the manual. But yeah, that would be the way to do it on a G4.

And for the render, I dont know about you, but I end up with a color correction filter on more than half of my shots. So the quality of the render pass can make a big difference.

By the way, I dont want to take away from someone who has no option but to render in HDV. On well lit static shots it can look just fine. I am speaking from a professional point of view in the posts above and I dont want to discourage anyone from making HD right now. Go for it if that is what you have. It can look really good under ideal circumstances.

-Christopher

>>sometimes FCP5 disappears suddenly as soon as I click on Boris 3D to begin a title. Poof, it's gone. So I don't dare do anything else but straight cuts. As for Motion, I rarely use it (because I haven't learned it yet)<<

Well, none of that is the HDV codec's fault.

1. Learn Motion. If all you need is titling, it's a very fast/intuitive learning curve.

2. If FCP crashes when applying a transition, then you have a completely different problem. Either you have a corrupted Project File, or it's time for a general cleanup and re-install.

3. Same thing with Boris.

Clay

I'm afraid to re-install. Because I don't want to lose what's working. It's just lack of expertise and paranoia on my part, I know. But I'm interested to learn, so tell me how can I re-install the program without losing anything of the projects I'm working on. I have a feature in SD that's almost finished. I have no problem editing SD, but the next project (which is already captured) is in HDV. If I re-install FCP5, will I lose the captured footage? How do I re-install? I have FCP 4.5 discs and FCP 5 upgrade discs.

Also I never sent in my discs for that $49 deal. Is that a necessary upgrade for HDV editing?

Hang on a sec. Don't do anything until you finish your feature, never do an upgrade in the midst of a project. Put it to bed first.

Yes, you need FCP5 to edit native HDV.

No, you won't lose the captured files. Just import>files after you've done the upgrade to bring them in to a new HDV project. Read the documentation first to learn how to do the install.

No, you don't need to do the $49 crossgrade for HDV.

Clay