Why shoot FX-1 if you can't edit?

Those who know about the FX-1 are telling me that you cannot edit HD footage shot with a Sony FX-1. What good is this camera then? Are those who own it shooting their footage and then waiting for FCP-5?

People are using 3rd party tools like LumiereHD.com, or are using iMovie to capture and convert the video to AIC, and then making FCP edit the AIC files. The problem with that is that AIC is putting artifacts into the video. Quite frankly, the Apple workflow for HDV is not there yet, and unless Apple pulls a real rabbit out of the hat for FCP, I'd not be editing HDV in FCP. BTW, I wrote some of the code for LumiereHD, so I'm well aware of both HDV, how it works and how FCP and iMovie work with it.

Alternatively, people are capturing the component output (because the device that's meant to convert the Firewire MPEG2 output to SDI is not out yet) and using a component to HD SDI converter and capturing uncompressed on, say, a Decklink and a very large fast disc array.

Graeme

The camera output in HDV is the same kind of MPEG transport stream used by broadcasters in transmission. This is an interesting IP frendly stream. There's a $80 plug in for FCP that converts that to all editable I frames. It's very a loss-less procedure for all practical purposes, but does take a few extra seconds to process.

Get used to the concept behind this, as I predict it's going to become the commonly used solution for mid level HD.

Ian

It's only lossless if you convert to uncompressed, and a lot of people don't have the kind of hard drive you need for uncompressed 1080i, and then you need a monitoring solution as you can't view it back out of the camera, making it although the camera is cheap, the infrastructure is not.

HDV is probably going to be nothing more than a bridge format - the pro world is rapidly going tapeless, as is the home consumer market. I doubt that low end professional will stay with tape for very much longer.

Graeme

For the past 4 years I have been using FCP for editing and capturing Betacam SP in an uncompressed format. I am continuing to do so using 500GB SATA Serial HDs. With the plug in that Ian mentioned that sells for $80.00 will I be able to commence editing HDV in the HD format and thus take advantage of the FX-1 image quality? I don't like the PD-170 for long shots with a lot of foleige.

Keep in mind that I no longer shoot for broadcast but only for DVD replication. Exterior nature kind of footage.

I greatly appreciate your comments (Graeme and Ian) and all the information that I can gather. I have a shoot next week in Colorado and would like to go this route if at all possible.

Thanks.

PG

I'm less convinced of the dead end bridge nature of HDV, and more confident it will see a long life. Also with tape vs tapeless I see archiving on tape of production for quite a while. Tapeless perhaps for finished masters.

My take is that this is gong to be a very well adopted format in industrial and local station use. However, Graeme and I would agree that it's a brand new and we're both guessing - and so will anyone else on this. It's just that if this is the same stream broadcasters are feeding me as "HD" and that's what they are feeding the cable system too - It seems it's going to be "good enough" for looking a client in the eye and calling HD.

Currently there is not ONE local advertising client willing to pay even a 2 cent premium for HD advertising production, so it'll be a LONG time before anyone uses a varicam in THIS market.

HDV I can see being used next week.

Again - we've all got some serious crystal ball gazing and belly button meditation ahead of us.

Ian

Ian,

Can you point me in the right direction for locating the $80.00 plug-in that you refered to in a previous posting? Is this the one that Graeme helped develop?

I take great stock in what both of you have to say and I do have to move right away on this next assignment. This project in Colorado is a 6 month (off & on) project but I need to know if I can edit the footage by this Summer.

The PD-170 just does not do the job in the long shots.

Indeed!!! The only issue I have with the Sony HDV, picture-wise, is that it addressed the resolution issue, but not the actuall quality of the pixels that make up that resolution. It's a quality v quantity thing.

As for it being what is broadcast as HD, yes indeed, but as we know, even if the end result of our work is VHS, we dont' shoot VHS, but a higher format for what I like to call "production headroom", and if we're shooting for DVD, we don't shoot on a DVD camera, but something an awful lot better.

I don't know what the results of shooting heavily compressed HD and then editing and broadcasting after another very heavy compression are. But then again, I think even pristine HD or 35mm film broadcast on HDTV leaves a lot to be desired.

And Phil, if the result is DVD and you want it to look nice, shoot with a Digital Betacam or SDX900 DVCpro50. Both are standard def, but excellent picture quality, and have big chips, and low compression. I think they will capture the detail in the wide shots you want. Also, a Varicam would be nice if you want to shoot HD, but I don't think HDV is going to cut it, and it will have the very same issues you have with DV.

If you use the HDV software to get it into your mac, you might want to compress it with the DVCProHD codec anyway so that normal hard drives can handle the data rate, as uncompressed is very, very large. I'm using a big Xserve RAID to cope with uncompressed HD here.

Graeme

[www.hdforindies.com]
for details on how to use iMovie to get the HDV in.


[www.lumierehd.com]
for a FCP direct plug in.

There are others mentioned but I've NOT tried them or the above personaly. I do NOT know which one was running on the demo I saw last week.

Ian

Thanks, Ian,

I will look these up immediately.

PG

In my not so humble opinion HDVxDV is the most elegant solution as of this moment. Lumiere requires too many steps. HDVxDV will bring over TimeCode too.

Download the trial version and see for yourself

[www.lafcpug.org]

Thanks Michael,

I'll do that within the next hour. I appreciate the tip.

Phil

I have been checking about HD for long time, every time more confusing. What for: FCPHD, if you can't edit HD? HD cams, if you can't use that quality? express, imovieHD, etc, if is not that easy, and you need more plug-ins and more stuff, lots of money, etc ?????
I was thinking of moving up to FCPHD and one of those HD cams, but....what for????? no real advantage in quality?...but, yes, more money...
I better continue with my GL-2 and FCP3.

Johnny

FCPHD is called that because it can accept one type of HD natively, Panasonic's DVCPRO HD.

But where are you getting the idea that FCP can't edit HD? Sure it can. Plop in an HD capture card and get yourself a high speed RAID array and there you go.

Name one other NLE that captures and edits HD footage WITHOUT the use of a capture card? Avid needs one...Media 100 needs one...

Don't knock FCP because it can't handle ONE prosumer HD format natively.

You are right Johny. All this stuff is confusing. Way it is with any new technology I'm afraid.


Mpeg streamclip is a fine tool but you need DVHS CAP to capture the HDV and mpeg streamclip allows no TC...yet. Course TC might not be a concern to Z1 and FX1 owners.

Right now Mac users all are a bit confused about all this HDV stuff which is understandable. Canopus Edius users and Liquid Edition users have it cozy, but for us, its a matter of working around the barriers if we want to use this camcorder and format.

But make no mistake here, the image that these "cheap" cams produce are quite stunning. It's the hassle of converting to an editable QT codec that makes us all a bit apprehensive about the purchase. We are spoiled for the most part by FW I/O.

I'd look at what Panasonic will offer us in their DVCPro HDX-100. Obviously it will be a much easier workflow via FW then this conversion thang.

Also JVC's "HDV2" solution which is a 6 frame GOP rather than Sony's 15 frame GOP. Problem here is that we seem to be getting into proprietary formats and decks and I hate that.

mike

Shane,

I have been capturing Betacam SP footage using a Pinnacle Targa CineWave with excellent results.

Who manufactures the capture card that you are refering to for HD footage? I would like to check it out.

Thanks.

PG

You can use a AJA Kona 2 or Decklink HD card with no problems.


mike

These:

[www.blackmagic-design.com]
[www.blackmagic-design.com]
[www.aja.com]
[www.randomize.com] (w/HD option)

Check out www.promax.com for their HD solutions.

"Plop in an HD capture card and get yourself a high speed RAID array and there you go".
That's what I meant by extra stuff "lots of money" . At least for a poor Colombian musician and missionary in this country.
I didn't want to talk bad about your FCP Shane, just in case, I love FCP too and my old MacG4. Excuse my ignorance about HD.
Thank you all for the "light", 'BUDLIGHT"...I mean...HD light.

Johnny

Well...HD is jsut that...High Definition. This isn't a format for the casual hobbyist. This is a serious and expensive format

BUT, with DVCPro HD and HDV that's all changing. "HD" is becoming the new DV, and like with DV we want things cheap and easy to use.

Times are a changing...

i'd like to ask about using HDV in an Off-line / On-line situation.

we all want to be able to deleiver / broadcast in the highest format possible.
but many of us have to work in a lower resolution.

how does this work with HDV?

is it possible to extract a low-res (say DV) version of our HDV rushes,
cut that,
then online (in FCP) from the orginal tapes (and original camera)?

or would i have to extract braodcast quality from HDV,
archive those files somehow,
and downconvert to DV for offline
then re-link to the high-res version?

thanks,
nick

The response to my initial question has been most gratifying and totally educational with many routes to travel and try out.

If I am successful as I expect to be I will share whatever I learn on this outstanding forum. If I fail I shall share that as well.

In the meantime much thanks to Graeme, Ian, Michael, Shane, Nick and Johnny M. for jumping on the wagon and offering your views and continuing to ask questions. You guys are great!

With much appreciation.

PG

With HDVxDV you can pick your poison from 10 bit uncompressed on down. Whatever codec you got, you pick.

DVCPRO HD is a nice codec to edit with. 1:1 conversion as long as you don't scale. Then its more like 4-5:1

mike

Do I have the impression that Miguel hablas Español???

Johnny

"DVCPRO HD is a nice codec to edit with. 1:1 conversion"

that's a good point.
so it's a "lossless" or near lossless version of your HDV, which you can cut with,
then put it in a higher-res timeline, and up-rez.

"as long as you don't scale. Then its more like 4-5:1"

scary...
you mean like blow the image up?
or even down?
so there's an instant and large reduction in quality if you try to scale just a bit?

i guess i should have been at the lafcpug HDV meeting :-)

i was wondering about the offline/online workflow as it seemed like there would be problems trying to capture HDV material off the camera at specific timecodes, what with the i-frame thing and all.

thanks,
nick

Jody Eldred who spoke at our HDV Night shot some footage for this Network TV show called JAG with the Z1 and they captured it using a Kona Card and went straight into a D5 for editing.

Scaling up or down requires a hefty fast Mac and lots of time according to Brad the author. Very CPU intensive

He feels the best codec for the buck is the DVCPRO HD 1080i. 1:1 and it looks sensational

I dont know what it looks like after scaling. I'll try to get Brad into this thread to tell us.

mike

One of the things that just blew my mind, was how great this camera looks when converted to DVD. I shot with a Sony FX1, used HDVxDV to capture and convert to DVC Pro HD 1080i, then edited in Final Cut Pro, and exported a DVC Pro HD 1080i to DVD Studio Pro 3. I've never seen such a clean image out of DVD Studio Pro. It blew away anything I had created using a standard definition video file.

For everyone trying to edit HDV video, the big question is can your customers tell the difference between video made with a DVC Pro HD 1080i verus an uncompressed HD workflow or not? If you plan to distribute in standard definition, can you tell the difference between in the final result?

In many cases, I believe that the difference in quality between using DVC Pro HD and uncompressed 8 bit HD are going to be unrecognizable when you deliver on Standard Definition.

For HD content, nothing beats uncompressed HD. I recommend using HDVxDV and going straight to 1440x1080 uncompressed for the cleanest possible image. However, will anyone refuse to accept your video, because it wasn't edited using an uncompressed HD workflow?

I think that as more people start creating spectacular looking video with HDV Camcorders, all this nonsense about DVC Pro HD versus Uncompressed HD workflows will go away.

Now, is the time to go out and make use of this incredible format. Stop reading endless posts from people who never shot a single frame of HDV, but think they know how it will look. Try it, see it for yourself. Judge it for yourself if you can on a good HD CRT monitor like the JVC DT-V1910CGU (LCD, Plasma, and DLP monitors just add too many artifacts and noise).

If you can't afford uncompressed, don't panic. DVC Pro HD will deliver a great image. Stop reading this post and go out and make a great video with HDV!

"ry it, see it for yourself. Judge it for yourself if you can on a good HD CRT monitor like the JVC DT-V1910CGU (LCD, Plasma, and DLP monitors just add too many artifacts and noise)."

How can a 4:3 monitor with 800 lines resolution be (vertical resolution isn't specced on the JVC Pro site, but it's going to be reduced by a significant amount when you view 16:9 material on it) a) a good HD monitor, and b) have any chance at all of showing what a full resolution 1080i video actually looks like??

As you know, I'm using a HDLink out of my Decklink to a 23" cinema display for HD monitoring, and I'd hardly call that artifact ridden or noisey. Similarly, I'm also using a DLP projector for monitoring, and viewing HD at a more realistic size.

Even the $30,000 Cinelata monitor is at 1000 lines, but at least it's 16x9. I worked on a HD project with Panavision, producing some 3D graphics renderings from their meta data, which we composited with the HDCAM footage they shot. Back then I didn't have an HD monitor, but I did have a cinema display. The comping was done in After Effects, and although not perfect (HDCAM is not easy to key as it's like DV with it's 3:1:1 chroma sampling) it wasn't bad. We durned the .tiff seqeunce onto many DVD's and sent it back down to Panavision. They made the .tiffs into a movie and put it onto HDCAM tape for the demonstration at NAB. At NAB we saw the finished HD on a Cinealta monitor, like the one I mentioned above and it's quite amazing what detail it doesn't show. Back then we didn't have the horse power to render full HD frames, and knowing that HDCAM wasn't the full 1920 resolution anyway, we rendered at about 2/3rds real size and enlarged in AE. In AE on the cinema display you could see this, but not after it had gone onto HDCAM tape and was being played back on the Cinealta. Neither could you see lots of the flaws in the key, or even artfiacts in original HDCAM footage that were plainly visible on the cinema display.

That's why I now use the HDLink + Cinema Display as it shows every last detail, and for my work that's utterly necessary. If you just use a CRT monitor as your only HD reference, even if it's a $30,000 one, there will be details you're missing.

Graeme

I disagree with this assessment. The problem I have with LCD is that it tends distort the video levels and color. The Cinema display is a great monitor, but it doesn't have enough contrast ratio. It's true that you can't see every pixel in the HD image, but the CRTs are much more accurate for color. The CRT tends to smooth out an image while the LCD tends to create artifacts and banding because it can't display the entire range range of the video signal.

I can't speak for what works for everyone else, but I was far more impressed with the range light and color that the FX1 produced when I viewed in on a CRT than on an LCD. It's what does it for me.