Native HDV versus Cineform editing - noticeable quality losses?

Hi folks.
Is it me or Premiere CS3 feels more happy editing native HDV versus Cineform? With HDV it just renders A LOT faster and the program seems to run better (less stutter). The only downside is that it takes forever to load the project (versus Cineform) and the mastering output choices are smaller.
I really like Cineform, but in my computer it just asks too much patience(Win XP SP3 + P4 775 3.06 + 1024 RAM).
Editing in HDV, the quality is really that sacrified???? My editing routine consists of dissolves, magic bullet looks and classic effects.
What is your opinion? Thank you guys :)

Thank you Steven.
Cineform does not render only if you use their effects. But if you need Magic Bullet Looks or GenArts Sapphire the story changes. I did some little test:
HD clip 1920x1080 50i of 4:10 seconds with "Basic White Diffusion" Magic Bullet effect takes to render:
01:30 minutes in CFHD
00:50 seconds in HDV
Can I export my HDV project to Cineform in order to preserve quality? What other options do I have?

Similar Messages

Why don't iMovie support native HDV capture and editing?

i would like to see iMovie HD 6 to support native HDV capture and edit. is it possible?

no, FCE-HD (what an abreviation!) uses the same trick as iM-HD, converting HiDef into AIC....
native HD is really more for the pros... yet! I think, the basic problem to be solved first is -r media, meaning, any HD/blue-ray-DVD-r disks, which make it possible for the average user to store his/her products.... but as far as I follow the discussion, right now the industry is caring more for commercial disks, and that HDMI "problem" (broadcasting can include a copyprotection, so no use of any HD/DVD HiDef recorders...!)... finally, we can record only our selfmade movies... maybe that's a little less joy...
actually, converting finished HDmovies into h264 with a high bitrate and storing that onto hd is the only realistic option........

Importing .MTS files without any quality loss!

I recently shot a short documentary in Uganda for a non-profit with an HD camera. I left the camera with the organization and took the .Mts files back home on an external hard drive. Found out they won't import, oh no!
So I looked into converting them and have downloaded almost a dozen programs to convert the files but there is ALWAYS a noticeable quality loss. It has become REALLY frustrating and I need some solid advice on how to get this video in the Premiere at good quality. I need a good converting program Work arounds? What format should I convert into?
I also have Premiere Pro 1.5. I know it's a little older but it's all I've got (and can afford). Thank you VERY MUCH for the help!

The link I posted http://forums.adobe.com/thread/390605 is in the Premiere Elements FAQ area, but the software discussed at that link has nothing to do with PrElements... it is software to convert AVCHD to HDV so the HDV files may then be edited
As I said... I do not convert because I have CS5... but, the two programs mentioned in the 1st posting should, according to Steve, do what is needed
http://www.newbluefx.com/avchd-upshift.html
http://www.shedworx.com/voltaichd
The 3rd link in that message was blocked by Norton, so I do not recommend clicking that one

Editing native in HDV with no quality loss

Maybe some of you have already read this article
http://www.dv.com/features/features_item.jhtml?category=Archive&articleId=174900 673
Because HDV's MPEG-2 compression retains only one frame (the I-frame) every half-second or so and interpolates the others, native HDV editing must cope with a major challenge: Even a simple cut, unless executed at an existing I-frame, causes massive recompression and artifacting in the subsequent frames.
to avoid this problem:
video should be acquired with wavelet based plugin that doesn't interpolate frames
Footage remains 50i but with the codec we choose
QUESTION
Lumiere HD seems to be a good choice for managing this work but which codec doesn't interpolate frames and between this codecs which should works best?

I guess I don't understand the question.
From what I know of LumiereHD, and HDVxDV...they take the mpeg 2 format of the HDV and convert it into an I-Frame format...giving the footage full frames. The Apple Intermediate Codec does this as well.
But if you use Lumiere or HDVxDV, you lose any and all timecode information, and you footage is slighty compressed. The compression isn't noticable, but the loss of timecode is huge.
When working with HDV, I recommend either capturing it natively...or better yet, getting an HD capture card, HDV deck with component outs and RS-422 control and capturing it as DVCPRO HD.
But I have been lucky enough to avoid HDV for now, so I have no practical experience, only what I have heard and read.
Shane

HDV or AVCHD editing = processor utilization = import/exp. quality loss

Hello,
my question about processability of HDV/AVCHD Movies with iMovie. I have learned that HDV and AVCHD files are transfered in the AIC format. That should mean editig a movie would be always in the AIC format and I assume no difference whether I come from HDV or AVCHD format it should be similar demanding to the core2duo processor except initial transcoding from H264 to AIC - is this right?. When I save a movie out of iMovie do I save it in AIC or in HDV/AVCHD? Is there a quality loss transferring a movie back and forth from/to HDV/AVCHD to AIC since HDV employs mpeg2 and AVCHD employs H264 which are both compressed formats? Practically does this also mean that AIC can work as a bridge to between both formats?
Thanks for your replies to my several questions!

I have cut/pasted this from another thread where I posted it following a question from a Canon HV20 owner. The info applies to all HDV and AVCHD cams though. Might help you decide.
This comes from www.camcorderinfo.com
Compression (7.0)
The Canon HV20 (Review, Specs, Recent News, $903) uses HDV compression, a very efficient MPEG-2 codec with a fixed data rate of 25Mbps, identical to the data rate of standard definition DV compression. HDV excels in capturing stunningly high-resolution video, but it is inferior to DV in terms of rendering motion realistically, due to its dependence on interframe compression. This means that at 1080i, only one in fifteen frames is a full-frame picture, while the intervening frames are compressed in relation to each full I frame. Interframe compression is much more efficient than intraframe compression, and allows HDV to squeeze a full 1920 x 1080 picture into a 25Mbps stream, recordable to inexpensive MiniDV tapes. DV uses intraframe compression, so each frame is a fully independent picture, allowing much better motion capture. DV also uses a superior 4:1:1 color space while HDV encodes via a truncated 4:2:0 color space.
The inherent weaknesses of HDV have led many networks to deem the format sub-standard for broadcast, but it is still the best high definition format available on the consumer camcorder market. Most consumers find the stunning resolution of HDV trumps the superior motion handling of DV. A professionally lit HDV interview (or any HDV shot without too much detail or motion) can look nearly as good as footage shot in a professional HD format on a $20,000 camera. AVCHD, a new HD format that uses H.264 compression was introduced in 2006 and compresses video even more aggressively than HDV. Our tests of Canon's UX1 (Review, Specs, Recent News, $729.95) and SR1 (Review, Specs, Recent News, $1119.99) last fall show that while AVCHD video is very sharp, it suffers from grain and artifacts much more than HDV compression. The wildcard in the consumer high definition arena is a new MPEG-2 format developed by JVC, the MPEG Transfer Stream codec, which appears for the first time in the Everio HD7 (Review, Specs, Recent News, $1529). MPEG Transport Stream compresses video at up to 30Mbps, and may rival or even outclass HDV compression.
Media (6.0)
Like other HDV camcorders, the Canon HV20 records to MiniDV cassettes, the same inexpensive and widely available format used by standard definition DV camcorders. MiniDV cassettes have a run time of 60 minutes in SP mode, but can hold up to 90 minutes of more compressed LP video. Unlike the DVD, memory card, and HDD formats, MiniDV tapes are linear media so moving clips to a PC from tape is a real-time process. For anyone serious about the quality of his or her video, HDV recorded to MiniDV cassette remains the best consumer HD option available. To date, consumer non-linear video formats do not support the highest-quality video compression codices for high definition (HDV) and standard definition (DV).

Major Quality loss when editing in Iphoto 09

Hi,
I am a new user to Imac and Iphoto and I saw that when I edit an Image in Iphoto, I loose a lot of my original data.
I have found that I can return to the original picture, but I wish to edit (especially using the CROP function) then print the Image on 20x30 cm size and therefore I need all the quality I can get.
When I Crop either JPEG or .RAW formatted images (for example 10 MBytes in size) even if I select the COMPLETE image, I am left with only 4 or 5 Mbytes of data.
It gets much worse when I really Crop a part of the picture.
A 12 Mega pixel photo should supply sufficient data to cover a complete wall, but for some reason a lot of quality is lost when I use any of the editing features.
Am I doing something wrong ?
Should I change any of the settings ?
Thanks for your advice

Welcome to the Apple Discussions.
the only difference is that Iphoto took my quality !!
Are you basing the "quality" loss on visual appearance of the photo or on the resulting size of the jpeg file? If it's the latter that is really not an accurate method. True, some information is lost with a jpeg edit and save (only the first edit in iPhoto results in additional jpeg compression) but, in my experience, you would have to print a VERY large print before seeing any noticeable image degradation. I've compressed jpegs as high as 60%, i.e. a quality setting of 40, and for most all uses up to 5x7 prints haven't seen noticeable image degradation. However, I realize image quality is subjective and open to individual interpretation.
So unless you are visibly seeing image degradation I wouldn't worry about the file size reduction, especially in iPhoto as it's compressed only once no matter how many edits are made and saved. Apple uses a compression algorithm that gives the best image quality for the amount of compression it uses.
The following is from the Usernet FAQ site article "JPEG image compression FAQ, part 1/2':
Subject: [4] How well does JPEG compress images?
Very well indeed, when working with its intended type of image (photographs and suchlike). For full-color images, the uncompressed data is normally 24 bits/pixel. The best known lossless compression methods can compress such data about 2:1 on average. JPEG can typically achieve 10:1 to 20:1 compression without visible loss, bringing the effective storage requirement down to 1 to 2 bits/pixel. 30:1 to 50:1 compression is possible with small to moderate defects, while for very-low-quality purposes such as previews or archive indexes, 100:1 compression is quite feasible. An image compressed 100:1 with JPEG takes up the same space as a full-color one-tenth-scale thumbnail image, yet it retains much more detail than such a thumbnail.
Read more: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/jpeg-faq/part1/#ixzz0UKB59gND
Message was edited by: Old Toad

Native HDV editing

I'd like to know. Do you plan to include this option to iMovie in future (iLife 07 maybe)?
iMovie captures HDV movies and convert them to AIC. I really hate this. Why do you choose this way? I had problems with capturing, with quality, with HDD space.
If I want to get HDV video (not DVD), my movie will be recompressed twice - HDV >> AIC >> HDV. Some of my movies looks like DV after this.
It's really bad. I've always used Mac because it is quick, high quality, stable thing. But now... I never think about I can get back to PC. I don't like PC, but I have to edit my movies on PC right (I use Ulead VideoStudio).
Please fix it. Make native HDV editing option.

Alexey,
I think you're getting quite mixed up about what you see on your computer, or HDTV screen, and the actual quality of HDV..
1 - HDV is very high resolution: it has 4x the resolution of normal DV (Digital Video)
2 - To fit all that extra data (4x standard definition) onto normal DV tapes, the hi-resolution video is not recorded as individual frames of video: a single hi-def frame is recorded, then - as Mike has tried to explain - the next 14 "virtual frames" are simply chunks of data which describe the differences between the original frame, and the subsequent frames. Then, after those 14 "virtual" frames, another full frame is recorded: this process, or picture format, is known as "Long Group-Of-Pictures" and the "complete-frame-and-virtual-ones" method of 'compressing' all that data into a small space is known as MPEG-2.
3 - Because there are 14 "virtual" (actually, non-existent) frames after the initial full frame, this material can't be frame-accurately edited unless the "virtual frames" are rebuilt into actual frames. Apple does this automatically, using the 'Apple Intermediate Codec' used in iMovie: this doesn't compress anything ..but de-compresses, or expands, the original material, and recreates the actual view which was shot by the camera; creating those extra frames from the data contained in the "virtual" frame info. So translating the HDV into AIC doesn't "spoil" anything; it simply rebuilds real frames from the "blueprints" contained in the MPEG-2 recording.
4 - When you see, either on a computer monitor, or on an attached "..1080 LCD TV.." the replay of your 'de-compressed' movie as a .mov within iMovie, you're looking at a downgraded editing version of the actual footage ..just like movie editors working with a rough 'edit' or 'work' print of a 35mm film on their Moviola see a lower grade movie than finally makes it into theatres: they see a print with lots of scratches, inaccurate colour ..just a "rough-and-ready" version. [..Though I have to say that my HDV movies look pretty good on my little Hi-Def monitor in iMovie..]
5 - It's only when you Export back to a tape, in HDV format, your edited movie (..by reconnecting the camcorder to your Mac..) that the full quality is rebuilt back into the same Long-GOP MPEG-2 format in which it was originally shot. Then connect the camcorder to your "..1080 LCD TV.." via component or HDMI connections, and then you should see your movie exactly as sharp as it originally was.
In other words, the appearance you see while editing your movie in iMovie, or any standard-def .mov created from that "work print", may fall short of the actual HDV version which you'll get when you Export your movie back to HDV tape and then view it.
Does that help..?

Native hdv editing on macbook pro 2,33GHz and 2GB RAM

Hi,
I intend to start editing native hdv on my portable mac. It has a 15,4" monitor, ati mobility radeon X1600 256MB graphics card, 160GB 5400rpm hard disk and a FW800 port. The output will either be hdv to tape or DVD. Can you tell me if it will be a stable configuration?
What about the preview on my monitor - will it be hdv 1440 x 900 resolution? What will be the impact on the color correction process? And about the disk - is 5400 rpm enough or should I try to change it to 100GB 7200rpm or maybe store it all on a FW ext disk? Is it true that if you capture to your hard disk and then transfer it to a FW ext disk the chances of having dropped frames are much less?
I'm just upgrading now to HDV filming and editing so I have all these basic questions and doubts. I hope you understand and help me out. Thanks.
MacBook Pro 2,33GHz Mac OS X (10.4.7) 2GB RAM

It's not good to use your internal drive to run OS X and import footage. Here is some information from Final Cut Pro's manual.
If you need to fit a lot of media files on a relatively small hard disk, such as a
PowerBook (or Macbook Pro) hard disk, you can recompress all your media files. This is the phase of the offline/online workflow when you create the low-resolution, offline quality media files for rough editing.
Format______________________ Format Typical data rate
OfflineRT (using Photo JPEG)__ Varies between 300-500 KB/sec.
DV (25)_______________________3.6 MB/sec.
HDV (1080i)__________________3.6 MB/sec.
Your internal drive should be fine for OfflineRT editing as the format uses much less data rate, so your drive can run the OS and Final Cut Pro at the same time.
The manual tells you how to use the OfflineRT format. It's quite cool!
Mac OS X (10.4.8)
Mac OS X (10.4.8)

IMovie HD6: HDV to AIC to HDV... quality loss?

Hi All,
I'm curious, when I use my normal workflow (HDV to AIC (imovie 6) to HDV), does it lose quality?
If so:
* Is there a way to avoid this?
* How much quality is lost? Is there a visual comparison available?
Thanks for any input!

Dear catspaw,
Here are my thoughts, based on my experiences, and what I think I understand of all this..
1. Standard-definition DV (those little tapes, or the larger 'broadcast' tapes) is pretty much compression-free ..we-ell, strictly speaking there's some, but relatively little, compression used in DV. It looks perfect, although it is slightly compressed. The material recorded onto tape - and imported into iMovie - contains every frame which the camcorder optics see. So editing it is simple: all the frames get copied into iMovie, and you can chop out, or insert, anything you want. Using iMovie HD 6, or earlier, you can then copy the edited material back to a DV camcorder ..all the frames get shuffled out of the computer and back onto tape again. (You can't do that with iMovie '08, as it has no option to Export to Camcorder.) What you see in iMovie - after importing from a DV camcorder - isn't exactly the same as what you've imported, because iMovie runs on a computer, and uses a computer display, and that generally shows complete "progressive" frames of video, whereas a TV ..or TVs with cathode ray tubes; precursors to the latest LCD or DLP or plasma TVs.. will generally show interlaced 'half-frames' one after the other, each comprising half the TV picture, but shown in such rapid succession that they blur into each other, and our brains see a succession of complete frames.
(..Here's a good visual representation from one of Adam Wilt's pages:
..There are two 'fields' of video, each made of half the entire number of lines down the screen, superimposed on each other, and blending into a full frame of video comprised of all the lines. That's what happens on a TV screen when the interlaced 'fields' of video blend together..)
So standard-def DV is really plain and simple, and there should be no quality loss after shooting, importing, editing, exporting.
2. Hi-def. A can of worms. There are several different varieties of "hi-def". What we're working with in our 'amateur' movie program, iMovie, is generally the HDV version of hi-def, or the AVCHD version. (And a few people may be working with JVC's version of 'progressive' frames, but with a lower total number of lines down the screen: 720p, instead of 1080i. 720p has 720 pixels down the screen, and records and presents an entire 'progressive' ..one-line-after-the-other.. frame of video at a time, whereas 1080i shows 1080 pixels down the screen, consisting of half that number, 540; all the 'odd-numbered' lines.. at a time, immediately followed by the other half ..the even-numbered lines.. slotting in-between the previous lot. That repeating pair of 540 'interleaved' lines gives a total of 1080 interlaced lines in every frame. Movement appears smoother using 1080i (..after all, the picture is refreshed twice as often as with single-complete-frame 'progessive' video..) but may not look as super-sharp as progressive video, because at any moment there's only half the total information of a frame onscreen. 'Interlaced' video is smoother, and any action flows more "creamily", whereas 'progressive' may be considered 'sharper' (..it is if you freeze a frame..) but more jerky.)
So our 'amateur' hi-def movies may be recorded as HDV, AVCHD or some other similar format. 'Professional', or broadcast-intended, hi-def may consist of several other non-amateur formats, some of which are completely uncompressed and require extremely fast links between the cameras and recording equipment, and massive-capacity hard discs to capture and edit the huge quantity of data which such cameras..
..deliver ..for $150,000. Or here's a remote-control broadcast hi-def camera for (only) $7,995..
(..Tell me if I'm boring you..)
The hi-def cameras which we're more likely to be using..
..record compressed video in MPEG-2 format, or H.264, or some similar codec. The idea behind HDV was that the companies which make 'consumer-grade' (amateur) camcorders wanted a method to record hi-def - with about 4x the data of standard-def - onto the little miniDV tapes which we were all familiar with. So a method was found to squeeze 4x the data onto a tape which normally records standard-def DV data at 25 megabits per second. The method decided upon was MPEG-2 ..the same codec which is used to squeeze a two-hour Hollywood film onto a little 4.7GB capacity DVD. (Bollywood movies, as distinct from Hollywood movies, tend to be three hours long!)
If MPEG-2 was good enough for the latest cinema releases, in nice, sharp, sharper-than Super-VHS form, then it was thought to be good enough for 'domestic' hi-def recordings. The only awkward thing about that - from an editing point of view.. (..but which of the camcorder manufacturers are seriously interested in editing..? ..they primarily want to sell 'product' which - according to their advertising - is terrific at simply recording and playing-back video. Like car advertising shows you how wonderful cars are to sit in and for travelling to places, but the adverts don't tell you about how tricky it may be to get into the rear sidelights and replace a blown bulb..) ..is that in HDV there's only one 'real' frame for every 15 frames recorded on the tape. The other 14 are just indications of what's different between the various frames. Therefore, for editing, the 'missing' frames must be rebuilt during import into iMovie.
Steve Jobs heralded 2005 - at MacWorld, you may remember - as the "Year of HD!" ..It became possible to import and edit hi-def in iMovie ..that is, the HDV version of hi-def, not the uncompressed 'professional' broadcast version of hi-def, of course.. but ONLY with a fast enough computer ..and many weren't fast enough to import and convert HDV to editable-format in real-time (..no mention of it being the year you would import at half, or a quarter, or an eighth, real-time ..ugh-ugh).
So HDV gets converted to AIC to make it editable ..and then what d'you do with it? ..Few (none of them?) HDV camcorders let you import HDV back to tape from iMovie. No Macs had/have Blu-Ray burners ..although you can burn about 20 mins of hi-def onto normal DVDs with a Mac's normal inbuilt SuperDrive DVD burner with the appropriate software ..DVD Studio Pro, or Toast, etc.
(..Once again, there was some omission from the hoopla ..yes; you can import HDV! ..yes; you can edit HDV! ..er, no, sorry; no mention that you can't burn a 1 hour hi-def home video onto a hi-def DVD with a Mac ..iDVD would/will only burn in standard-def, and there are no Blu-Ray burners built into Macs..)
Then came AVCHD (Advanced Video Codec; High Definition). This compresses video even more than HDV (whose compression is pretty much invisible, and is in regular use for broadcast material) by using a different method. And along came progressive hi-def recording, trying to supersede HDV's generally 'interlaced' 1080i hi-def.
But the problem with progressive, non-interlaced AVCHD is that if there's rapid movement in a scene - if you move the camera, or something rapidly crosses the picture - instead of the "creamy flow" of interlaced video, there's a jerky lurch from one frame to the next. And with the added extra compression of AVCHD this jerkiness can be (..to my mind..) even more horribly evident.
Anyway, unscrambling ..and then re-assembling.. hi-def interlaced MPEG-2 HDV is pretty much invisible - to me, anyway. The video looks sharp, moves smoothly, looks 'true-to-life' and doesn't have terrible artifacts and jerks.
Unscrambling ..and then re-assembling.. hi-def interlaced or progressive AVCHD (..which is sometimes described as MPEG-4 or H.264..) - I know that you know this, but I'm also writing for others here - isn't quite as simple as doing the same for tape-based MPEG-2 hi-def HDV. Here's all the gobbledegook about what AVCHD can consist of.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-4_AVC
..Oh, and here's a bit about the "usability" of AVCHD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVCHD
There are many more 'varieties' of encoding in AVCHD than in 'simpler' hi-def, such as HDV. There's less data sent in an AVCHD data stream than HDV (..AVCHD has jumped from 17MBits/sec to 24MBits/sec ..just below HDV's 25MBits/sec..) so the video is more compressed than HDV. And there are all sorts of video formats (interlaced, progressive, HD, 'Full' HD) which are recorded by different cameras under the all-embracing 'AVCHD' label. iMovie - or a Mac - has to work much harder to unscramble and convert the more-compressed AVCHD format(s) than uncompressing HDV. And has to work harder to compress the output of iMovie to H.264 (an AVCHD codec) than when re-compressing to MPEG-2 (the codec for standard-def DVDs and hi-def HDV).
To - finally! - come back to your question "..is there therefore no advantage in using DV tape-based vidcams for editing purposes.." I'd say that there ARE advantages in using tape-based vidcams for editing purposes ..using your two categories:
1. Non-hi-def tape-based DV is ..to all intents and purposes.. lossless. And the material can be imported in real-time, and be output - with no loss - in real-time, too, using any Mac from an old G3 onwards. Importing non-tape material into iMovie ..e.g; miniDVDs, or chip-based, more compressed video.. is more long-winded, and generally has to go through various external bits of software (..e.g; MPEG Streamclip or somesuch..) to put it into a format that's editable in iMovie. AVCHD can, theoretically - as 'AVC', without the 'HD' - be used for recording in standard-def, but there are currently few AVCHD camcorders which are built to record standard-def video as well ..there is the Sony HDR-SR12. But only iMovie running on an Intel-powered Mac will decode AVCHD, apart from separate standalone Mac software such as 'Voltaic'.
2. Hi-def tape-based recording IS an advantage on anything that's less than the fastest, or highest-powered, of Macs, because it needs less "horsepower" to "unpack" the compressed data and to get it into an editable format through recovering, or rebuilding, the necessary individual frames. I think it's an advantage in every case, as not only can tape-based hi-def be edited on older, slower Macs (including pre-Intel Macs) but also:
(a) HDV data's less compressed, and so motion is generally expressed - currently - more "fluidly" than with the more compressed hard-disc or chip-stored AVCHD,
(b) HDV original material is "self-archived" onto its tapes ..you don't have to "empty" a camcorder's hard disc or memory chips onto something else - such as a separate hard drive - in order to re-use, or continue using, the camcorder: you just drop in another cheap 1-hour tape,
(c) Tape-containing camcorders tend to be heavier, less lightweight, than fewer-moving-parts chip-based AVCHD camcorders. They're therefore inherently less "wobbly" and don't tremble so much in your hand ..that gives smoother, less "jiggled-about" recordings ..even taking into account the stabilisation built into most camcorders,
(d) Tape-based camcorders are less likely to lose an entire 'shoot' by being dropped or mis-treated. Material already recorded onto a tape will not be damaged if you drop the camera and its tape-heads thereby become misaligned. The data can be recovered by simply ejecting the tape and popping it into another camcorder. If a hard-disc camcorder is dropped, subsequent head misalignment may mean that all data already on the hard disc is irrecoverable. If a memory chip becomes corrupted, all data may similarly become irrecoverable. If a tape becomes damaged, it's usually only a few seconds' worth which be lost. (..I dropped a tape-based camcorder in the sea when I was trying to get shots of waves coming in onto the beach from an offshore viewpoint, and a wave washed right over me and knocked me down. The camcorder was a write-off, but I managed to prise the tape out, and recover the 30 minutes of movie I'd already recorded. I don't really want to test it, but I have doubts about whether I'd have been able to recover my video from a similarly-drowned hard-disc based camcorder ..maybe, in the interests of factual objectivity I'll try it some day with an old, no-longer-used 2.5" hard disc..)
(e) AVCHD camcorders - unless you're looking at 'semi-pro' or professional 'cost-a-plenty' record-to-chip camcorders, or that Sony HD12..
..are generally built for "point-and-shoot" amateurs. This means that AVCHD camcorders generally do not have the assortment of manual controls which you find on most tape-based HDV camcorders (..because the camcorder makers also aim, or aimed, HDV at low-cost broadcast users, too). There's usually far greater flexibility and more shooting options (shutter speeds, exposure, audio handling) on tape-based HDV camcorders than can be found on AVCHD camcorders. If you're just pointing and shooting, that doesn't matter ..but if you want to shoot good-looking video, there are generally - and it is a generalisation - more adjustment options to be found on a tape-based camcorder than on a chip-based or hard-disc AVCHD camcorder. In my experience - yours may be different - people tempted by AVCHD camcorders tend to buy (..and manufacturers tend to publicise..) high pixel counts (like "Full HD 1920x1080") and that magic word "progressive" (perhaps because it has the flavour, in English, of "futuristic" or "more advanced") rather than their being concerned with choices of apertures or shutter speeds and the clearest representation of what the camcorder's pointing at.
In summary ..at last!.. "..is there therefore no advantage in using DV tape-based vidcams for editing purposes.." Yes; the advantages, I believe, are that HDV converts fast into AIC for editing; my perception is that HDV delivers smoother action (onscreen movement) than AVCHD; and with a suitable deck..
..HDV can be returned back to tape, whereas it's more long-winded and needs more subterfuge to export AVCHD back to a chip, or a camcorder's hard disc, for in-camera replay ..and thence out to an HDTV.
As always, these are simply my opinions ..others may disagree.

HELP! iPhoto 08 Quality loss after edits

HELP! iPhoto 08 Quality loss after edit!
Any edited version, no matter how minor, causes the file size to be cut in half!
Original 3872 x 2592 is 3.1mb at 300dpi .
Edit version 3870x2590 becomes 1.5Mb at 72dpi.
B&W conversion 3872x2592 becomes 1.6mb at 72dpi.
Seems like a major degradation! iPhoto 6 wasn't this bad.
DPI change is not a problem but the file size change sure is!
PLEASE! any ideas before I upgrade all my files to 08. Please - don't say Aperture, it's still too slow and cumbersome. Trying to avoid Lightroom and stay within Apple sphere.

It really isn't a big degradation. There is a jpg compression when you make any edit but you might be hard pressed to see the reduction unless you're enlarging/printing the file to very large sizes. The most critical part of an image file is the number of pixels in it.
The reduction in size depends on the image content of the photos. If there's a lot of the same color, i.e. like lots of blue sky or a same color wall, that type of image will see much more compression than a very intricate photo. Also when removing the color information for a B/W conversion reduces the file size considerably. Do a Google search for jpeg compression and you'll find some very informative descriptions on how the compression is performed and what part image detail plays in the resulting file size.
You would have to compress the file a number of additional times time before you'd see the change. And with iPhoto's Revert to Original capability, you can start a new edit fresh with the untouched digital negative.
Do you Twango?
TIP: For insurance against the iPhoto database corruption that many users have experienced I recommend making a backup copy of the Library6.iPhoto database file and keep it current. If problems crop up where iPhoto suddenly can't see any photos or thinks there are no photos in the library, replacing the working Library6.iPhoto file with the backup will often get the library back. By keeping it current I mean backup after each import and/or any serious editing or work on books, slideshows, calendars, cards, etc. That insures that if a problem pops up and you do need to replace the database file, you'll retain all those efforts. It doesn't take long to make the backup and it's good insurance.
I've written an Automator workflow application (requires Tiger), iPhoto dB File Backup, that will copy the selected Library6.iPhoto file from your iPhoto Library folder to the Pictures folder, replacing any previous version of it. It's compatible with iPhoto 08 libraries. You can download it at Toad's Cellar. Be sure to read the Read Me pdf file.

Is there any 3rd party plugin that turn on native HDV editing feature?

Hello,
I love iMovie, but I'd really like to see native HDV editing feature. I guess Apple will never do this, so maybe there is some 3rd party plugin for iMovie that will allow to edit HDV without recompression?

HDV is mp2-encoded material on miniDV cassette.. the 'nature' of mpeg2 doesn't allow a frame-precise editing (only GOP precision, as used in mpeg editors as Streamclip of ProjectX); if you do any editing (adding disolve, titles, effect) you have to encode/'recompress' .. - the 'AppleIntermediate Codec' iMovie uses to make such imports editable is a lossless codec.. so, what should add a 'native HDV' editing...?

Significant quality loss and jagged diagonal lines when exporting from FCP

I've been working on this problem for several days and I'm going insane! Every time I export my movie from Final Cut, there is a significant quality loss. It is most noticeable in two ways: diagonal lines become very jagged (looking somewhat like diagonal lines in an older video game -- more a diagonal sequence of blocks); also, in some areas such as faces, the colors get a little blurry and there seems to some "pooling" of colors around the edges of the face.
I'm pretty sure the problem's not in capture: the Quicktime clips that I captured from the camera are all pristine. When I play them in Quicktime, I can blow them up several times their original size, and they maintain their sharp lines. (I also Reverse Telecined them all with Cinema Tools, if that's relevant.) I also know the problem's not just my computer monitor; when I play these movies on my external monitor and TV, they look bad too. The clips look bad after I bring them into Final Cut, and while I'm editing, but at first I figured that was because Final Cut sometimes doesn't show full resolution in the timeline. Still, when I export, the quality of the original captures just isn't there.
Some details:
Captured from 24A progressive, Sony HVR V1U HDV.
Using Final Cut 6.0.1, Compressor 3.0.1, Quicktime 7.2.0, OS 10.4.10 (all the most recent versions I believe).
I've exported in many different ways: using Compressor (and have tried a number of different settings: the DVD Best Quality 90 Minutes default Setting, as well as using a variety of bit rates from 3.0-8.0, One pass CBR, Two pass CBR, Two pass VBR, Two pass VBR best; Video Formats NTSC, HD 1440x1080...I have tried many combinations. Regardless of the size of the m2v created, the files seem to have the same problem over and over. I've also tried exporting from Final Cut as a Quicktime Movie and with Quicktime Conversion. Same result. I also tried using different compressors with my Final Cut sequence: Apple Intermediate Codec (which I used when capturing -- you have to with the Sony HVR), HDV 1080p24, HDV 1080i60, Apple Pro Res 422, H.264...
What's happening? Why is Final Cut turning my nice pristine captures into jagged foulness? What can I try that I haven't yet?

Welcome to the forums!
Unfortunately, you seem to have tried everything I can think of, and I don't have the latest versions of FCP to know if it is a bug. However, in the off chance that you haven't given this a shot:
Take a problematic 10 second section of your timeline (set in and out points) and the Export -> Quicktime (not QT Conversion) and make sure that you have it on Quality settings that you captured, and select the "Make Self Contained" box.
Look at that in Quicktime and see if it's bad. If it's not problematic, use that video file in Compressor for your render.
Hope that helps!
~Luke

HDV mixed format editing and mastering for broadcast TV

Hi
I have HDV blues with regards mixed format and multi time base.
Any help advice will be greatly appreciated.
I have never handled HDV in multiformat and multiple timebase to Mater and output for Broadcast television.
I am hoping to master to DVD directly on the configuration ( details provided below ) to deliver to NTSC and PAL market for DVD retail.
However I would need to take to a post house, one or more quicktime file to Output to Digital Betacam for television broadcast for both NTSC and PAL formats.
with regards
problems I am facing are on two fronts:
1) I am unsure of best quality and workflow to output master on Digital Betacam tape for broadcast TV in NTSC and PAL both formats.
2) With sequence set at HDV 1080 50i, and export setting as current setting, upon render and export of self contained quicktime direct from FCP timeline I face few troubling symptoms;
- that the quicktime exports 3mins to 35 minutes of qt clip but not the whole program of 90 minutes as one clip. System crashes and I have to reboot.
- Another symptom is that by doing above my time line shows aduio as out of sync to video. here i see that Audio tracks A1,A2 as being torn apart at cut edit points and have gap of 1 frame at random ( but not on all edit points ).
A3, A4 and other music and sound fx tracks have slipped off sync by few frames , again at random and also other places the edit comes back in sync with audio.
- Of course I am having to re- render this sequence timeline a zillion times even though the previously rendered files still exist in relevant folder.
Program duration: 90 minutes
current sequence : 1440 x 1080 at 50i
edit sequence time-line consists following source material directly ingested from tape via firewire in native HDV and DV:
VIDEO
-HDV footage of 1440 x 1080, 50i
-HDV footage of 1440 x 1080, 60i
-PAL footage standard and widescreen
-NTSC footage standard and widescreen
- still images
AUDIO
-AUDIO is 16 bits , 48Khz
- Voice Over is 24 bit , 48 Khz
Software: Final Cut Pro version 6
QT: 7.4.1
System configuration:
1) Mackbook pro: OS 10.4.11
graphics/ display card: GeForce 8600M GT
Hardware Overview:
Model Name: MacBook Pro
monitor: one apple cinema display 23 inch
Model Identifier: MacBookPro3,1
Processor Name: Intel Core 2 Duo
Processor Speed: 2.4 GHz
Number Of Processors: 1
Total Number Of Cores: 2
L2 Cache (per processor): 4 MB
Memory: 4 GB
Bus Speed: 800 MHz
2) Mac pro: dual core, 2.3 ghz, 3GB RAM
two apple cinema display 23 inch
All project media residing in 1TB Lacie 800 firewire external disk.

Hi guys, thanks for getting back to me. My client has now changed her mind and so I'm just mixing XDCAM and HDV 16:9 footage which is absolutely fine. Awesome. Thanks for your help!
I have one issue - some of the XDCAM footage she has given me is .MP4 video (actually each clip is a folder with 5 files in it (.MP4, .SMI, .PPN, .XML, .BIM). Do I have to convert the .MP4 into .MOV via Compressor to work with it (presumably this will compress it somewhat) or can I convert it simply and losslessly somehow (perhaps using sony XDCAM software?)
Thanks again for any help!
Oliver

Quality loss after exporting 1280 x 960 30fps footage

Hello everyone,
Everytime I edit and export footage shot with my GoPro camera (1280x960p, 30fps) the quality gets a little less. Very frustrating as I am clueless after a long time of looking for what I'm doing wrong..
I use Premiere Pro Version 4.2.1
Sequence presets:
General
Editing mode: Desktop
Timebase: 29,97fps
Video Settings
Frame size: 1280h 960v (1,0000)
Frame rate: 29,97 frames/second
Pixel Aspect Ratio: Square Pixels (1.0)
Fields: No Fields (Progressive Scan)
Export settings:
Format: H.264
Preset: Custom
TV Standard: NTSC
Frame Width: 1280
Frame Height: 960
Frame Rate (fps) 29.97
Field Order: None (Progressive)
Pixel Aspect Ratio: Square Pixels.
Has anybody got an idea what could help here?

Thanks for the replies guys, but unfortunately the problem isn't really solved yet..
I tried checking the maximum render quality, but that only resulted in my laptop not being able to smoothly play the exported video.
Filming with the 1280 x 720 setting is possible, but then the footage just doesn't look that sharp.. (as I can't film in 60fps, I got the first GoPro 960).
I installed Cineform and converted a little test video to AVI. This resulted in an export video without quality loss, but the conversion with Cineform took way too long for it to be a practical solution cause I edit a lot.
At last, Abhishek Kapoor, I couldn't find the video setting you're talking about to increase the maximum bitrate.
Any other ideas that might work?

.MTS encode to .MPG Quality Loss

Hi, I have a Panasonic ADVHD camera that records .MTS files. I edit the videos in Premiere Pro and I export them as a .mpg (mpeg2). I've noticed that I lose a lot of quality of the file when I export. I am using Windows 7 quad core 4gb of ram. Is there any way to avoid this major quality loss? I've been reading forums and I haven't been able to find anyone else having this problem. Thanks.

First off.. your files are HDV anamorphic, not HD:
1440x1080 (1.3333)
You need to be sure your sequence settings match your media:
1440x1080 (1.3333)
With your media file, using proper (matching) sequence settings,
I exported from Premiere using these default settings:
Comparison of my encoded .mpg file (middle), with yours (edges):
How to easily create a sequence that matches your media:
Also... what is that thing?
Is it a bell tower clock?

Native HDV versus Cineform editing - noticeable quality losses?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for