Workflow HDV to Standard broadcast SDI

I want to shoot HDV bring it into my mac convert the video to 10 bit uncompressed standard 720 by 486 using HDVxDV software to convert the footage and then work with the 10 bit uncompressed 720 x 486 SD footage.
My question is: I want to display the output to my sony analog monitor. What is the best input/output board for my needs?

Search is your friend:
http://discussions.apple.com/search.jspa?objID=f939&search=Go&q=hdv+dvd
Patrick

Similar Messages

Workflow Aproval - Non standard (Problem in the Worklist - bbpbwsp)

Helo,
I have build one approval workflow to the process bid invatation. In this workflow i have one task (non-standard) where the user can approve de process.
The client use de ITS SRM, the worklist used is the BBPBWSP.
When the Workflow start, the approval task appears in the worklist, but when i execute this task, it is open initial menu SAP. Not using our service Z.... instead /scripts/BBPAPPROVAL/...
Can anyone help me?

Hi
I know the ITS Debugging makes quite a life easy for some of the cases, like this.
By the way, which SRM version are you using ?
Anyways, will give you details, how to enable the ITS debugger in your system. Ask your BASIS person to help you out in this case.
Note 451292 - How to use ITS debugger
Note 304371 - RFC debugging set in service file BBPUSERMAINT
Note 392570 - EBP: Required data on the problem processing
Note 893425 - MIME type with attachments
Note 954135 - Instructions for debugging workflow activities
Note 903200 - Workflow tracing for problem detection
Note 995328 - Extended System Status Information for SAP SRM
Hope this will help.
Please reward suitable points, incase it suits your requirement.
Regards
- Atul

Online Workflow - HDV & 5D Mark II

Hello all.
I'm trying to work out a new workflow. The main requirement of this is that the FCP documents and media files can be shared across the internet. I am currently using Dropbox for Photoshop etyc work. Sharing the folder with the grapic designer. I would like to do the same with my FCP projects, allowing a potential editor to work from home.
The main issue here is file size. I shoot mostly HDV at the moment and will be adding a 5D into the mix soon. I usually shoot about 4- 6 HDV tapes on any given project, or about 50Gb. Is there a way to dramatically reduce the filesize of this so I can upload it and allow the editor to work on them. The idea being that when the editing is complete that the changes would be applied to the full resolution files. I've used ProRes once but it seemwd to make the HDV files even bigger, so I'm not sure that it is the way to go.
Am I away with the fairies on this one?
Any help and / or guidance would be appreciated.
Declan

I am currently using Dropbox for Photoshop etyc work. Sharing the folder with the grapic designer. I would like to do the same with my FCP projects, allowing a potential editor to work from home.
That might work with photos, but it will NOT work with video. Not yet. File sizes and data rates are too big to allow that. You either need two copies of the media, or you both need to work in the same location.
CLOUD EDITING as it is called, is being developed by Avid. They announced this earlier this month. Where the footage is on a central server, and people can access it wherever they are, as long as they have an internet connection.
Shane

Workflow - Best practise / Standards

Hi All,
Does any one have idea where can I find Best practises / standards to be followed for Development of SAP Business Workflow ?
Waiting for reply.
Regards,
Akshay

Hi Akshay,
I have worked in 2-3 projects involving workflow. I haven't come across anything called best practice. Following are the rules we follow -
1) When creating task, it should start with ZT..T for task. Third character should represent the task type...like M for mail, a activity, f for form...so ztm, zta...This will be followed by some good description.
this way it is easy to search if we want particular info.
2) workflow templates should start as ZW*
3) Also make sure you follow some convention in objects/method names from SWo1. For ex, for methods with syncronus and with result it will be ZMSR_...
4) Make sure you create an object for common utilities..
If these are what you looking for, then let me know i can send the document. Good luck..
Hari

Best Workflow; HDV - SD DVD

I'm a little new to using HDV with Final Cut Pro, but was wondering what the best recommended workflow would be for the following project;
I plan to use my Sony HVR-V1U to shoot a two-hour (give or take) video in 1080i. I want to import into FCP, edit, add my titles, transitions, whatever, and then export out to DVD SP so I can do menu creation, chapter points, etc. What would be the best recommended workflow to do this? Should I export to Compressor (using what settings?) and then import into DVD SP, or should I export as an uncompressed Quicktime and let DVD SP handle the compression. I am after the highest possible quality. Thank you in advance!

Vernexto wrote:
I'm a little new to using HDV with Final Cut Pro, but was wondering what the best recommended workflow would be for the following project;
Should I export to Compressor (using what settings?) and then import into DVD SP, or should I export as an uncompressed Quicktime and let DVD SP handle the compression. I am after the highest possible quality. Thank you in advance!
You should encode using Compressor or other encoder and not let DVD SP do the encoding.
Now I do usually send timelines straight from Final Cut to Compressor, and many people prefer this method since it is sending data to Compressor without rendering, though with HDV it can take time (lot) especially if you want to re-encode. So often I also just export as self contained in ProRes or AIC. The export takes time, but can save some later if re-encoding.
It terms of encoding settings using better for resize and the others in frame controls helps alot in quality, but again adds some time. (For SD DVDs)
You should calculate the rate for your footage based on running time
http://dvdstepbystep.com/faqs_7.php

HDV to standard definition

I am thinking of getting Premiere Elements. Can I convert 1080i HDV files into standard definition files for making standard definition DVDs? Is the quality of the conversion good?

Well, PrE will do the down-rez for you, in several ways, however down-rezzing is not the strong suit for either PrE, or PrPro. For some background and suggestions for ultimate performance, you might want to see this TUTORIAL.
Good luck,
Hunt

HDV converted via to SDI

I've got a project looming and as everyone here probably knows, the HVX200 has been pushed. Does anyone have any experience running HDV through a HD analond to SDI converter? for example, the Aja HD10A? I know they used this camera as a supplemental cam on NCIS, and some other big shows, they must have done it this way. Audio has me stumped as well. Suggestions are welcome...
excellent.

First, you do know that the HVX200 is DVCPRO HD, not HDV, right? I was answering the HDV part of your post.
The equipment list for converting HDV to HD-SDI uncompressed 1080i for editing and monitoring:
1) Sony HDV VCR or camcorder
2) Aja HD10A (converts HDV analog component to HD-SDI uncompressed 1080i)
3) Aja Kona 3 (or Kona 2 for OCI-X G5s)
4) Aja K-Box
5) Aja HDP (converts HD-SDI to send to DVI display)
6) Apple 23" Cinema HD Display
7) ATTO FC-42ES (dual channel PCIe 4Gb/sec fibre channel HBA)
8) Huge Systems 4210 (4TB dual channel 4Gb/sec fibre channel array)
9) HD VCR (HDCAM or other)
If you're going to use a previous generation G5, you'll need the PCI-X versions of the HBA and Kona cards. If you have a G5 that doesn't have PCI-X or PCIe slots, you're out of luck. Also, load up on RAM - it's cheap.

SC Workflow not updating standard field

Hi,
I am using SRM 5.0 .After approval of SC which have multiple item not updating standard field of source_ind to all the line items .
It's getting updated in only first line item .
Recent Package : SAP_ABA SAPKA70011
Thanks ,
Sachin

Hi,
DO you mean to tell that after the shopping cart is approved , only the first item is send to the sourcing cockpit?
ANd the other items of the shopping cart are not send to the sourcing cockpit?
Can you please compare the category for the two lines? is it the same?
can you check wether the category mentioned for the second line has got category which has been configured for sourcing cockpit?

Standard or Custom workflow

Guys & Gals,
How would you find out if a given workflow is a standard or custom workflow.
Thanks for advice in advance.
Warm Regards
Raaj

Hi Raj,
The main difference is seen by the workflow number.
Standard workflows start with numbers like 1,2 etc...
e.g: WS14000002
Custom workflows start with the prefix set by the basis team in SWU3 configuration.
The prefixs generally start with 8 or 9, so any worklfow starting with WS8 or WS9 would be a custom workflow.
eg: WS95100010
Hope this helps!
Regards,
Saumya

Triggering Standard Workflow

Hi Experts,
In the Standard SAP Appraisal System there is an BSP Apllication which will do both online and Ofline scenario for appraisal process and thereby triggers the standard workflow for approval process and follow up activities.
Workflow = WS01000105
Event = CompletedAppraisal
Now i am replacing that Layout of Appraisal form with Adobe Interactive Form in the same BSP Application.
Now should i have to write a code for triggering event for starting the standard workflow or the standard function module which i am calling to update the appraisal data will trigger the event and start work flow.
Thanks in Advance........
Regards,
Chandran Subramanian

hi Chandran Subramanian,
This is just my suggestion HR workflows will trigger based on SWEHR1 , SWEHR2
Check in the Function modules and in the previous code wether it contains any of these Function modules if it has a similar one plz replace it. Else u need not do any thing the WF is triggering by some other means.
SWE_EVENT_CREATE
SAP_WAPI_CREATE_EVENT
SWW_WI_START_SIMPLE
Regards,
Dheepak

How to invoke a custom Workflow in standard PCR

Dear gurus,
I would like to invoke a custom Workflow from the standard PCR for Transfers. Do you have any idea how I can achieve this.
Thanks!
Vivek.

Hi,
In QISRSCENARIO transaction, Open your ISR scenario. SAP has delivered SPPS for internal transfers. Open SPPS. At the end of the screen click on "Additional Data for Scenario".
Here the WF is defined.
Change it to what u want. You will need to adopt ur new WF to std delivered one.
For more information please have a look at
<a href="https://websmp206.sap-ag.de/~form/handler?_APP=01100107900000000342&_EVENT=REDIR&_NNUM=1049057&_NLANG=E">sap note no 1049057</a>
Cheers!!
Ashutosh

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.

Check settings combinations to achieve good Optical Flow HDV 50i -ProRes422

Hi Guys
RE: Motion 3, HDV 50i, standard ProRes 422, optical flow
I'm trying to decide which combination of settings I should choose in order to ensure the highest possible standard of optical flow-treated video for a video clip which just features live people - no graphics.
So far my results haven't been as 'smooth' as I would have liked. Below I have detailed my steps taken - if you could recommend which combination of 'lighting', 'field rendering', 'motion blur' or 'frame blending' I should choose I'd appreciate it.
1. I captured my Canon XHA1 HDV 50i video via HDV - standard Prores 422
2. I edited in FCP6 with standard Prores 422
3. I sent a video clip to Motion 3, new project and chose Broadcast HD 1920 x 1080 25 fps field order Top (Upper First)
4. I treated the video clip with optical flow to slow it down.
5. Export as standard Apple ProRes 422 movie.
Prior to exporting which of 'lighting', 'field rendering', 'motion blur' or 'frame blending' would anyone recommend please?
For reference, in this forum David Bogie kindly stated the difference between the choices. I have included his post below. However I just want to be sure I'm making the correct choices, as I'm a bit confused about the '50i' (interlaced) aspect of my video footage.
Here is David's post:
"lighting
field rendering
motion blur
frame blending"
These are options you need to use when you know why you want to use them.
If you have lights on in your scene, you want to render them. If you have no lights (and no camera) you do not need to activate lights. why does the switch exist at all? I render without lights for preview purposes.
Fields are necessary for interlaced formats. You must know if your production format is progressive or interlaced.
Motion blur enhances the illusion of movement by simulating image smear caused by an open shutter. You get the illusion at the expense of rendering time.
Frame blending is only necessary if you have video clips in your scene and even then you don't need it unless you've changed the speed of the clip. Sort of. "
Zak Peric also kindly posted, although I think his post relates more to graphics as opposed to interlaced video footage. Nonethless, here is his post:
"Just use animation codec + alpha if you have alpha channel if not use animation codec millions of colours. This is the best codec for best quality. Also 4444 is a very good codec to use as it supports alpha channel but gives you smaller file sizes. Use always BEST from the render window, if you want additional motion blur then switch it on in render view. Be advised it takes much longer to render with motion blur on."
Any tips would be really appreciated.
Warm regards
Peter

Hi Mark
Thanks for your kind prompt feedback.
"You say you sent a clip to Motion, but then you say you chose project settings - I don't understand this. If you really "sent' a clip to Motion using Final Cut Pro's "Send to Motion" command, you don't need to set project settings - Motion automatically creates a project with settings that match the FCP sequence. "
Okay I understand - sorry for any confusion caused - I had already used "Send to Motion" and applied Optical Flow to a clip which I then exported from Motion 3 as a Quicktime file. I was planning to repeat this process afresh, but am interested in which settings you could recommend from 'field rendering', 'motion blur' etc that might be applicable to my Optical Flow-analysed footage prior to exporting it as a Quicktime file.
As regards exporting my Motion work as a separate Quicktime file, I prefer to do this so as to avoid the waiting for it to render in FCP.
The already-optical-flow-analysed footage is actually pretty good (the original clips from FCP6 have already been stripped down to short durations to suit Optical Flow), but want to to double-check which of the 'field rendering', 'motion blur' etc combinations I should ideally choose to obtain best results, just in case I'm neglecting something that could otherwise make the quality even better?
Once I finish this video project I'm on I'll definitely be going for a clean install of SL and FCS3.
So, based on these choices...
lighting
field rendering
motion blur
frame blending
...I'm thinking that for my optical flow-treated video I won't need lighting, as it's mostly applicable to graphics.
I don't have any graphics in these optical-flow video clips. It's just moving video footage of people.
Am not sure about whether to choose Field Rendering (interlaced PAL 50i HDV - ProRes422 video).
Am not sure whether to choose Motion Blur.
Am not sure whether to choose Frame Blending.
Any tips would be really appreciated, and thanks again for your valuable feedback.
Peter

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).

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

Workflow HDV to Standard broadcast SDI

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for