HDV downconverting vs shooting on DVcam

Hello everyone,
Having just found out i can't view my HDV project on a monitor (perhaps I should of realised this earlier) and having read many a thread on the pros and cons of HDV i wanted to ask a question:
What is the qualititve difference between shooting on HDV on a Z1 and downconverting on camera (assuming my end product will be mastered to DVD or DVCAM Master) and shooting on DVCAM in the first place.
I was told recently that the Z1 is no more than a PD180 if you will. slightly better than the PD170 but basically only good for SD.
Any help with this would be greatly appreciated because then i can finally sort out my workflow. and who doesn't enjoy doing that.
Thanks,
Fred

I have a second monitor, widescreen, FCP can use it as an HDTV monitor because like all computer monitors, it is progressive and has the required pixels to display the image. I use the RAW setting for that monitor so the video is displayed dot for dot.
The rule given to me years ago was always shoot the best possible video. Then you can do what ever you want in post. You can't improve a poor image, but, you can down convert a great one.
HDV has a smaller file size than DV and a smaller bandwidth. I really enjoy editing in it, now that FCP supports it. (it really sucked when I had to use 3rd party software to prepare HDV for editing in FCP)
When I am done with my edit, I just leave it to cook overnight with compressor. I have a folder of all the output I need the next day. Mpeg2, AC3, Portable media player, an HDV master to put to tape, and if it is needed then an animorphic DV file.
We started shooting with a JVC HDV camera 2 years ago, now when the HD-DVD players hit the consumer market we have several back titles that we can re-release in HD, while our competitors are scrambling to upconvert their DV video.

Similar Messages

HDV downconvert or shoot in SD?

Seems to me... that there is no advantage to be had by shooting HDV and downconverting the footage to SD for editing and distribution. I DO NOT need to archive the footage for future HD. My only intention is to edit and distribute on SD-DVD format in 16:9 full and 4:3 letterboxed formats.
For the sake of an accurate comparison, assume the same camera would be used for either scenario above. (Canon A1 HDV). The number of pixels captured in HD would never be seen if displaying in SD. Considering the amount of hassles to work with HDV anyway, this is driving my point.
Am I missing something or?

You know, beyond personal use i can't understand why anyone chooses to shoot in HDV.
I don't know of any major network that accepts video originating in this format for HD transmission aside from some short b-roll clips. No matter what it was converted to.
For example: The BBC "HD: Summary of Delivery Formats" considers HDV as standard definition.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/dq/pdf/tv/hdsummary_delivery_formats_v13.pdf
2. Standard Definition
2.1. The following formats are considered to be standard definition:
o All standard definition video formats
o HDV from all manufactures
o Super16 film whether transferred to tape in high definition or not
o 35mm film transferred to standard definition tape formats
o Non linear editing codecs with bit rates below 160Mbs
o Live contributions via links at less than 60Mbs (MPEG2)
And from Discovery Channel:
... we don’t treat HDV footage as full-quality HD and restrict its usage on HD shows to a limited percentage of the program.
For instance, we have strict rules that limit the use of upconverted footage and HDV content in our HD programs. However, we always hold to our standards, which don’t sacrifice image quality on the altar of workflow.
http://www.definitionmagazine.com/issue_pdfs/def22/discovery.pdf

Best compressor settings for HDV downconvert -- attention hanumang

Reposting this bit because it differs significantly from topic of thread where it appeared.
goal: the best possible HDV-DV downconvert using final cut studio (hitch: I have added problem of converting resulting film from PAL to NTSC)
previous method: the best luck I've had is Quicktime converting from HDV to 10-bit PAL SD and compressor converting that to NTSC DVDPRO50
Hanumang recommended using compressor for first conversion. My response:
What settings?
By coincidence I decided to try the initial conversion (HDV to 10-bit) this morning on compressor (but I didn't change the frame rate; i didn't know they were relavant for HD downconvert; I only change them for the PAL-NTSC conversion).
At first glance, the compressor 10-bit conversion doesn't seem any better than the quicktime conversion (due to the frame rate settings?). I don't know for sure because I haven't sent it back to compressor for PAL-NTSC conversion and on to DVD SP.
One issue I'm worried about is the dimensions. quicktime's 768 x 576 (preserve aspect ratio checked; letterbox selected) was the only dimension setting that produced a film that looked right (on the dvd; it's squished in final cut). I don't see that option in compressor. I suppose I could type it in the frame size boxes.
I would be most grateful for help in this matter. I've spent a few weeks on this. I just plod along, zombie-like, trying a few different things every day, hoping to hit the jackpot eventually. I've been planning on trying to downconvert using my HDV/DV deck (print to tape in HDV; then change settings to downconvert and capture as DV). Would that help?
how do pro studios handle downconverting? What kind of hardware do they use? I'm an independent filmmaker, working on a small budget, but eventually, once the film is finished and (hopefully) I have more money, I''d happily pay for a good pro conversion. Do you know what that costs? The film will be 80 minutes long.
thanks again for your help.
What compressor settings do you recommend?
The best workflow I've come up with is qucktime conversion from HDV PAL to SD 10-bit PAL, then compressor conversion from 10-bit Pal to DVDPR0 50 NTSC.
By coincidence I decided to try the initial conversion (HDV to 10-bit) this morning on compressor (but I didn't change the frame rate; i didn't know they were relavant for HD downconvert; I only been change them for the PAL-NTSC conversion).
At first glance, the compressor 10-bit conversion doesn't look better than the quicktime conversion (due to the frame rate settings?). I don't know for sure because I haven't sent it back to compressor for PAL-NTSC conversion and on to DVD SP.
One issue I'm worried about is the dimensions. quicktime's 768 x 576 (preserve aspect ratio checked; letterbox selected) was the only dimension setting that produced a film that looked right (on the dvd; it's squished in final cut). I don't see that option in compressor. I suppose I could type it in the frame size boxes.
Anyway, I would be most grateful for answers to these questions. I've spent a few weeks on this and am past the point of frustration. I just plod along, zombie-like, trying a few different things every day, dimly hoping to hit the jackpot eventually. Actually, I've been planning on trying to downconvert using my HDV/DV deck (print to tape in HDV; then change settings to downconvert and capture as DV). Would that help?
how do pro studios handle downconverting? What kind of hardware do they use? I'm an independent filmmaker, working on a small budget for the time being, but eventually, once the film is over and (hopefully) I have more money, I'll be willing to pay for a good pro conversion. Do you know what that costs? The film will be 80 minutes long.
thanks again for your help.

My bad, I was out in the afternoon and didn't get a chance to pick up on your reply to the last thread. Sorry to hear that your first attempt with Compressor was so disappointing.
Just so we're clear, you're using what exact versions of the software? FCP 5.1? Compressor 2? (For Compressor, in particular, 2.0 vs 2.1 vs 2.3 is important.) And, what are your sequence settings in FCP? Finally, we're to understand that you're actually working in PAL HDV? Or are you working in AIC?

Hdv Downconvert

How do you DownConvert HDV 1080i50
To DV NTSC to work with

My only experience with downcoverting occurred with the Sony consumer HDV Sony HVR-A1U. There is an option on the camera itself which does on the fly downconverting to SD. It was pretty decent picture quality.
If the camera doesn't have it build in, I would assume you're looking at using something like the Kona cards.
http://www.aja.com/products_kona.html

DVCAM v DV?

Can anyone enlighten me please?
I use a Sony Z1 and have always shot in DV 16:9 - SD and HD, what are the advantages in shooting in DVDCAM.
I produce corporate film and wedding films that go to DVD.
Thanks

For what it's worth, the BBC suggest (or at least they did when I left last year) not down converting as the drop out risk is much greater when shooting in HDV - it's not that you're more likely to get drop out, just the consequences are greater. (I'm now about to write stuff I only just understand but I'll carry on anyway)
HDV is made possible by using a 12 frame group of pictures or 'GOP'. That means that each frame is based on an original source frame that could be up to 12 frames prior to it. If you lose that original source frame due to drop out, you can lose half a second of material rather than just a frame or two.
Frankly, whether you lose a two frames or 12 will generally still leave the material useless but you can see why there is nervousness about the risk.
For that reason I've always adopted the BBC principle of shooting in DVCAM for SD shoots and only shoot in HDV when I need HDV material. Also on a practical level I have a DSR45 and don't want to hook the camera up everytime I need to digitise.
However, it's interesting to hear people who are sticking with HDV without a problem. You may force me to finally shake off my BBC background.
As for DV v DVCAM. I agree there is no quality difference that people without elbow patches and who really understand what a GOP is will be able see. However, I think the main issue is tape quality. I'm told the proper Sony DVCAM tape is more robust than mini DV and will last longer in the library if that is an issue for you? Could just be Sony marketing but it has worked on me!
Horse for courses and all that!
Regards
Richard
The HDVvDV/DVCAM issue is all about drop out and the '12 frame GOP'

Does HDV improve SD/DVD quality

Hallo,
I want to switch to HDV for personal use only, but can't affort to buy a HDV camera and big HD television at the same time. So I have to decide wich one to buy first. So there are some questions maybe someone can answer.
So far I have been recording DV 4:3 PAL with a Canon MVX2i and a Panasonic GS400 and I have been happy with the results. Last year I have made some recordings in 16:9 but in my opinion the quality with both cameras is not very good, esspecially with shots where the camera is not really stable. The picture seem to fall apart a little. I do realize the pixels are streched and with the same amount of pixels it can't have the same quality as 4:3. But on (cable) television there is sometimes a broadcast that doesn't seem to have this "falling apart" effect ( a lot do ) while it uses the same mpeg (720x540) stream as the others.
So my first question: If I buy one of the cheap Canon or Sony HDV cameras and shoot HDV 16:9 footage, edit as HDV and convert it straight to mpeg2 for a regular DVD with compressor, would this give me a noticable quality improvement compared to DV 16:9 to DVD? It doesn't have to be more sharp but does it give a more solid picture?
Second question: Does above workflow decreases the effect of those bend, moving lines you see on for instant brick walls while the camera is moving slightly, because of the lines of the chips and the wall interferance?
Third and last question: Somewhere (I can't find it anymore) in this forum I read something about more artifacts around moving objects in HDV like in low rate mpeg compared to DV. Is this true?
Thank you for your respons.

So my first question: If I buy one of the cheap Canon
or Sony HDV cameras and shoot HDV 16:9 footage, edit
as HDV and convert it straight to mpeg2 for a regular
DVD with compressor, would this give me a noticable
quality improvement compared to DV 16:9 to DVD?
Absolutely not, assuming you are comparing good quality cameras of either format. HDV has a noisier compression scheme, and you will also lose definition (compared to starting SD) when you scale the HDV down for the DVD.
You will get somewhat more definition horizontally with HDV compared to anamorphic SD, but only if the SD is displayed anamorphically rather than letterbox. I think you would notice other problems before you would notice this improvement.
It doesn't have to be more sharp but does it give a more
solid picture?
No. Again look at the quality of your SD camera.
Second question: Does above workflow decreases the
effect of those bend, moving lines you see on for
instant brick walls while the camera is moving
slightly, because of the lines of the chips and the
wall interferance?
It would tend to increase that effect, which again with a decent camera is almost non-existent.
Third and last question: Somewhere (I can't find it
anymore) in this forum I read something about more
artifacts around moving objects in HDV like in low
rate mpeg compared to DV. Is this true?
Yes, HDV has motion artifacts from interframe compression, and DV doesn't. DV does have compression artifacts but all compression occurs within each frame.
If you do go HDV, be sure you understand the effect it will have on your ability to capture, edit, to monitor, to work with any particular camera or flavor of HDV. It is never a simple out-of-the-box solution and often requires more $$ than one thought.
Don't get me wrong here: HDV has lots of promise and can be very useful and improve quality in many situations. But for SD-only output it isn't going to help and will most likely hurt.

HDV converting for web

For the last year I've shot HDV downconverted to Anamorphic 16:9 SD in camera in FCP and then output the files for iphones/ipad. The resolution output is 480x270 in M4v (ipod format). This has looked pretty good.
Now, I've got FCP 7 and a new Power mac and I finally want to edit and export in HD!
The website i'm uploading to currently has the space for QT files @ 480x270.
Question is: If I capture and edit in HDV at the 1080i, If I export the file out @ 480x270 will the file still be HD? In other words, will the file have HD quality (twice pixels) in the limited space? I'd like my videos to utilize the better pixel count but don't know if that's possible while restricting the output size.
Any comments or suggestions to take advantage of HD for web videos? I've seen smaller HD videos on sites like youtube, just not sure how they went about exporting.
Thanks a million guys!
-Mike
Ok, I'm still learning and I'd love some comments from you experts out there!

There are a lot of factors that come to play with HD. It's not just frame size, it's frame rate, GOP formats, compression schemes, color space, the list goes on.
When it comes to SD, DV is a cheap, highly compressed, bottom of the barrel format. It can look pretty decent if you just edit it. But as soon as you start adding any filters, transitions, effects, graphics, etc., the quality starts to crumble and fall apart.
HDV is the HD equivalent of DV, only worse. Think about it this way. If you capture 60 minutes of 720x480 DV, the file will be about 13GB. If you capture 60 minutes of 1440x1080 HDV, the file will be about 13GB. What? How are they the same size when there is supposedly 4x the resolution? The compression and GOP format throw that information out before it even hits the tape.
FCP will allow you to convert HDV to ProRes on the fly as you capture via FW. You can't Log & Capture, it's Capture Now only, but it's worth it.
Now, onto the other stuff. The effects, filters, graphics. Why do these look worse in an HDV sequence than a ProRes sequence? Because of the color space of HDV. There's a bare minimum of color and luminance information in the HDV format. So when you start playing with it, there's no room to breath and it just falls apart.
Your footage itself will not improve in quality by using ProRes. The things you add to it will. Same goes for your DV sequences. If you work in an SD ProRes sequence, your graphics and effects will look better there, too.

Capturing other than DV/DVCAM

I am shooting with Betacam SP, and capturing to DV using a Sony DSR-45P.
If I want to capture to anything else than DV - let's say DVCPro or uncompressed (in order to get more coloour depth or just higher quality) can I do this? Or is the DSR-45P only letting me to capture using DV?

I always thought DVCPro is a better format than DV/DVCAM<<</div>
A lot of the confusion may be due to the fact that there are multiple "DVCPro" formats:
DVCPro, aka DVCPro 25
DVCPro 50, which was adopted early on by many local broadcasters to replace their aging BetaSP gear.
DVCPro 100
So to get 4:2:2 I would need something like Aja Kona to be able to capture in DVCPro-50<<</div>
Not exactly. While, yes you can convert to some of the other formats with the proper equipment, if you're source is of a lower quality, you really shouldn't expect the final output to be that much better (if any). If you're shooting on DVCam (4:1:1) and trying to convert to a 4:2:2 format you'd be MUCH better off shooting in that format in the first place.
-DH

Why use P2 technology - how do you log?

Can anyone explain to me why they use P2 technology? When we shoot our DVCAM footage, we log in FCP on a Powerbook, we mark all the good takes, then digitize based on what we've already seen. We don't need to re-log everything in the edit suite, we just start cutting with known good footage. Scene numbers, take numbers are already entered, and we're ready to go.
With P2, you record your footage, wait 8-10 minutes to copy the files to your laptop, then import the clips, with no markings; you don't know what the good takes are, you don't have any scene or take references, or useful in or out points. These all need to be added in FCP or P2 Log. You have to review all of the footage you've shot again, decide if the take is good or not (which can be fun if you've had 7 or 8 takes and it turns out take 5 was the 'good' one). This strikes me as an incredible waste of time, something we don't have the luxury of with ever shrinking budgets. I expect you have to keep some kind of paper log, (welcome to the 1980's) with an unpredictable file naming system, so that you know what you have when you're ready to post.
So is this really a good solution? Yes, you don't have to digitize. But you do have to log everything, which is very simple as you shoot in FCP, but you can't merge the P2 footage with a log kept in P2 Log or in FCP. Which brings me to my question: Can you create a log for P2 footage as you shoot, that can be brought into FCP without having to review the footage again or do a lot of post production typing?
To me, this is the Achilles heel of P2 production. Anyone have any thoughts? We don't shoot a frame without a scene number and tape number, we shoot 50 good shots a day from about 150 takes per day, and at about 60 days a year, we need to keep track of what we shoot as we go. I estimate at least a 1/2 day of logging for every day of shooting with the P2, and frankly, I don't have 30 working days in my year to create logs that I can easily make while we shoot.
P2, on the surface, looks great. But P2 and any direct to disk technology, to me, looks like a big step backwards in terms of workflow.
Fire away, folks.
MacBook Pro Mac OS X (10.4.8) Non-linear since 1994

As the editor of the productions I work on, I am never on set. And I and the producer prefer it that way. This way I come in with an objective point of view, does the shot work or not. I am not clouded by how much time and effort went into getting the shot, I just look at it afterwards and judge it by its value. So we never log on the set. We simply back up.
When we shoot our DVCAM footage, we log in FCP on a Powerbook, we mark all the good takes, then digitize based on what we've already seen. We don't need to re-log everything in the edit suite, we just start cutting with known good footage. Scene numbers, take numbers are already entered, and we're ready to go.
You do all this work on the set. We don't, we do it in post, so there isn't twice the amount of work...it is just done later. This is true of every production I have worked on...documentary, narrative TV, short film. We aren't in the field logging and capturing...that is done later. But it is still done. We also slate our footage, and if someone is on the set to do so, they act as Script Supervisor and mark the good and bad takes. So when I look at the footage in the P2 import window on FCP 5.1.2, I can take the good but not the bad. But...I am always in favor of getting everything, because even though a take might be bad, it might contain something good that I can use.
With P2, you record your footage, wait 8-10 minutes to copy the files to your laptop, then import the clips, with no markings; you don't know what the good takes are, you don't have any scene or take references, or useful in or out points. These all need to be added in FCP or P2 Log. You have to review all of the footage you've shot again,
Again, we slate in the field. Yes, the clips come in with odd names, but when you capture a tape there is no INSTANT name associated with that. You have to give it a name...as you import. You can do the same with FCP and P2, as you import give it a name, scene, take...mark it good. And again, we aren't reviewing the footage AGAIN...it is done for the first time in post. They may review it in the field with the P2 viewer to ensure it looks good, just like on any film production with a DVCAM deck recording thru the camera viewfinder or rewinding the camera tapes.
So is this really a good solution?
Works rather well for me. No problems whatsoever...except when I first started doing this and put ALL the imported P2 clips into one bin. 2000 clips. I'll never make that mistake again. I separate footage by card much like I make Dailies bins with tapes.
http://lfhd.blogspot.com/2007/01/organizing-my-p2-media.html
But you do have to log everything, which is very simple as you shoot in FCP,
You said that you log everything...in the field. I am logging everything in post. Still have to log. And, how do you "shoot in FCP?" That is a non-linear edit, not a camera. What do you mean by this? I guess I don't get how you are logging in the field without having to log. You are still taking the time to log and name the footage...so you lost me here.
Can you create a log for P2 footage as you shoot, that can be brought into FCP without having to review the footage again or do a lot of post production typing?
Not that I know of. Achilles heel? I suppose if you look at it from the point of view of your current workflow. But you have to realize that it ISN'T your typical tape workflow. Stop trying to make it work like a tape workflow. Square peg in circular hole. Same thing happened when people switched from Film to Tape...the workflows they were accustomed to didn't work...they had to devise new ones.
You are going to have to figure out a new way of doing things...or just not shoot with the HVX. It is a very different way of doing things, but production can be pretty slick if you work out a system. I have a system and it works great. If you don't like it, don't use it. Grab an HDV camera and struggle with THAT format.
P2, on the surface, looks great. But P2 and any direct to disk technology, to me, looks like a big step backwards in terms of workflow.
Tell that to David Fincher's crew on ZODIAK. Not one tape or scrap of film in that production...all digital.
If the tapeless workflow doesn't work for you...don't use it. Easy decision.
Click on Underdog for my experiences with the format. Start from the beginning and see how I progressed if you'd like.
Shane

Marketing kills

I have been corporate videographer for 17 years in Paris, France.
Do you think HDV marketing kills all the video products market ? I am not talking about the high end HDCAM market. Everything is focused on HDV and like nothing else exist.
I used to receive DV magazine and Videography with very interesting articles about techniques and products reviews : have you seen how thin DV magazine is now, merely 10 pages and 3 articles ? Very funny : the last review in DV magazine is about a hydrogen-fuel battery for camcorder !!! I know that the internet is the new media but on DV.COM nothing new and where are the valuable articles ? We are in the middle of the digital evolution and it’s like everything’s vanished.
A friend of mine, a very good videographer, works for the french national TV stations. He plans to change his very old PD 150 for a new camera, he can’t afford the Sony HDV HVR-Z1E and hesitates to buy the PD170 because he’s affraid to be out of fashion. Does Sony kill himself with HDV ? How many of you use the XDCAM HD ?. In Paris the biggest video supplier didn’t even sell 1 XDCAM HD. I have six 2/3 lenses : no I won’t buy the new XDCAM HD neither use a long GOP codec.
Are you afraid of the damages video product marketing are doing in our business ? Am I thinking wrong ?

Do you think HDV marketing kills all the video products market?<<</div>
Maybe I'm missing the point of your post, but IMHO, to answer your question; no. From the manufacturer's perspective it's matter of simple economics. They'll heavily market whatever they anticipate generating the greatest profits. Otherwise they'd soon be out of business. The fact of the matter is that worldwide, high-end cameras and gear only make up a small percentage of Sony's profits. They market in other ways to the high-end crowd ... DV magazine isn't that market.
HDV just happens to be the current profitable technology so that's where they're throwing their advertising dollars. And if you hadn't noticed (its really hard to miss), most magazines are nothing more than a advertising platform for the manufacturers anyway. That's why they're offered through a free subscription.
A friend of mine, a very good videographer, works for the french national TV stations. He plans to change his very old PD 150 for a new camera, he can’t afford the Sony HDV HVR-Z1E and hesitates to buy the PD170 because he’s affraid to be out of fashion. Does Sony kill himself with HDV?<<</div>
I have no idea what this has to do with your original statement. Sure, HD is the future so ANYONE contemplating a camera purchase will have to face the same decisions. Would you buy a new PPC Mac right now - knowing that all future software development would be for Intel chipped computers only? You'd be buying 'old' technology.
If your friend only needs SD then buying an SD camera would save money and get the job done. Bottom line, that's what it's all about. But if he's considering a move to HD in the near future, then buying an SD camera deserves rethinking. If that is the case, he can always buy an HD or HDV camera and shoot in SD (or downconvert) until he's ready to make the jump. By then, he may be even able to afford an HD monitor and deck.
Are you afraid of the damages video product marketing are doing in our business?<<</div>
What damage? Are you speaking of the proliferation of low cost cameras that can create amazing footage so more and more people become competition for you? If that's it, get used to it. It's happened in every business segment that computer technology can reach.
But if that isn't it, I don't see any 'damage' to the market. If anything, they are many more options (in terms of models, formats, features, etc) available now than there has ever been in the market.
I have six 2/3 lenses : no I won’t buy the new XDCAM HD<<</div>
What's your point? I have a storage shelf full of analog video cameras and still (film) photographic cameras that I can't even give away (I've tried). Fortunately I was able to sell off my darkroom equipment before the digital wave hit. Like I said above, you'll just have to get used to the rate of change in technology - it will neither be easy or constant - the rate of change itself is ever increasing. Currently it's HDV - next week, next month, next year, it will be something else. Look for new technology to roll out faster and faster ... or at least as fast as the manufacturers can profit from it.
Anyway, that's my take on it .... or maybe I just missed the nature of your post.
-DH

KONA LSe PCIe SD capture card.

Hello there...
Just wanted to pick your brains... I've just finished a long run of work and the boss wants to sort out the edit suite and see if we can improve overall performance etc...
One of the things that was recommended to him by another editor was to invest in a KONA LSe PCIe SD capture card... which sounds all very good but we only shoot on DVcam...
However, even though we won't capture any 10/8 bit uncompressed, am i right in thinking the card would be useful in handling effects etc, therefore reducing the strain/workload on the processors?
In a nutshell... is there any advantage to installing this card, even though we NEVER capture uncompressed media?
Thanks for your opinions.
J,

Increased performance? Render handling? RT effects? Not if you capture DV via firewire. You might get slight performance improvements with footage you captured with the card, but it will not enhance anything, really. Definately not firewire captures. The HD cards do some load bearing processing for HDV and DVCPRO HD, but nothing considerable.
If you capture, edit, and output DV, there is no reason to get this card.
Shane

Which firewire interface for Final Cut Pro on MacPro?

I currently own a Presonus Firepod, and it seems to work pretty well, but may sell this when I upgrade from a MacMini to a MacPro. I use my Mac for Logic Pro currently.
I anticipate running Final Cut Pro in the near future, so I'm wondering about the ability to read/generate SMPTE time code that the MOTU traveller supplies?
There will be no external mixer, so this interface will connect directly to speakers & headphones. (would be nice to be able to mute speakers and control headphone mix using just the firewire interface).
I don't anticipate needing more than 2 Mic inputs - and my current mike is a Rode NT1. (As the NT1 is not a top-of-the-line mic, unsure if I should place a lot of emphasis on worrying about the pre-ams?)
I would like decent mic preamps, and ability to graphically monitor input and output levels (is this graphic monitoring necessary, or is just the single overload indicator sufficient?).
Which interfaces in $600-$1500 range would work best with Final Cut Pro - and Logic Pro?

I saw the Traveller ads in Videography mentioning
time code, so I presumed it had an advantage over
other interfaces.
I found this in some ad copy:
"""The Travler provides on-board SMPTE time code synchronization features that allow you to slave your Traveler system to SMPTE time code without a synchronizer. The Traveler provides a DSP-driven phase-lock engine with sophisticated filtering that provides fast lockup times and sub-frame accuracy. The included MOTU SMPTE Console software provides a complete set of tools to generate SMPTE for striping, regenerating or slaving other devices to the computer."""
So it likely uses an audio port for timecode I/O. However, unless you have external equipment that you want to slave to Logic Pro, (or have Logic slave to) e.g. a timecode DAT, then this really is not necessary. FCP would not see the Travaller as a "controllable" device.
For Final Cut Pro use, I'd probably shoot in HDV.
When shooting a green screen near my computer (or
maybe even on-site), I wondered if there would be an
advantage to recording the audio thru an interface
like the traveller.
The advantage is that you could capture additional mics and audio tracks with your mac while the cameras shoot. Just slate your takes and sync up later.
Do I actually need an interface that provides time
code, or is that only needed for movie work?
I have SMPTE I/O on my Unitor8, directly accessable in Logic Pro. In 8 years I've probably used it twice to capture audio from some modular digital multitracks. So, unless you have some specific need.....
Maybe it is simpler just to connect to the mic
directly to the camera's input?
Indeed. You should always have camera audio available. Anything else is supplemental. Alternatively, you could use the Travaller or RME, etc. as a "live to camera" mixer in a studio situation. Plug your mics into the interface, create a submix and send it to the camera while simultaneously capturing each mic to an individual track in Logic Pro. There are many possibilities.
G5 QuadPPC2.5, Ram:12.5g, Magma PCIe-PCI expansion Mac OS X (10.4.8) 2X Hammerfall DSP Digiface+Multiface, Digi 002r, 4X UAD-1

DVD as both 4:3 and 16:9?

I want to make a video for my brother, but half the content is SD 4:3. The other half will be 16:9 HDV downconverted to DV. My question is, if I export each DVD chapter separately so that I can make the 16:9 clips anamorphic, when I go to put them onto a DVD via DVDSP, will it be able to change from 4:3 to 16:9 on the fly, or will I need to pick one aspect ratio and stick with it? I think if I need to go that route, 16:9 it will be, just cause that's the future and my bro would probably watch it on his powerbook (16:10) most frequently.
-Brian

Bit of a question for the DVDsp forum however rather than widdle you off and send you there . .
In DVDSP you can specify the format of each track as you add it so you would need to preserve each clip in its respective format rather than export the edit as a complete chunk and expect DVDSP to know how to display each clip as it encounters the chapter markers.
It makes little difference although you might get some funky switching as the playback tv interprets the 4:3 and 16:9 flags. Personally I'd make a decision at the edit stage and decide which TV format is most likely to be used.
either letterbox the 16:9 or enlarge the 4:3 to fill a 16:9 frame.

I have just upgraded from the old G5 to a new one, however I can't log and capture on the newest FCPs off my Sony Z1.. please help, deadline coming soon

I have recently just upgraded from my old white powerpc G5 which did not allow me to edit in HD and I had to down convert all my footage to edit in DV. I have bought the newest FCP studio, and I had to order a new firewire as my new desktop does not take the old one that I had before. The new firewire that I have which is the only one that fits into my iMac from my sony Z1 is a Firewire IEEE1394-B (800) 9 pin to 4 pin .
My Mac : Processor- 2.8 GHz Intel Core i5
Memory- 4GB 1333 MHz DDR3
All my settings are set to HD and the ilink convert is off, and VCR is set to auto. Why is it not reading my Z1???
Please someone help me, i have been using FCP for years now and have not come across this problem before...

camera not recognised in system profiler just says maximum speed up to 800mb/sec
still says "unable to locate the following external devices:
HDV (1440x1080) 50i" in FCP when i try easy setup
Try a different cable first ... it might be a connection problem
VCR HDV/DV- Auto
Component- 1080i/576i
i.link convert- off
down convert letter box
A/V-DV OUT- off
Bit of guesswork here - haven't used a Sony in a while - but try these:
• HDV/DV to HDV
• downconvert off/none?
mish

HDTV suggestion

hello all. i have been using an SD monitor with the Matrox MX02 mini but it is not really accurate color space since the signal is downconverted. i shoot mostly 1080 30p. I want to buy an HD TV to monitor color correction and realistic output and see a progressive signal. Can folks recommend a good HDTV around $600 or so?

ah, but reread my question.
A "good" HDTV for monitoring and color correction cannot be had for that kind of money. And what are you going to? Web? DVD? BluRay?
I've used a lot of Sony monitors with both SD-SDI and RGB inputs The color space isn't all that different from HD-SDI, especially if you're not doing precision broadcast or theatrical release. In which case you'd want to pay a lot more for a monitor.
AJA makes some nice converters to go from SD-SDI to RGB.
And look into setting up your current monitors with measurement tools, which will cost a whole lot less. And do a custom setup on your computer monitors, for both web and video outputs.
Over here I have some high-end LCD video monitors and Sony Triniton HD tube monitors.

HDV downconverting vs shooting on DVcam

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for