Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Some people are getting hyped up about the new HDV
format, but to me it is like takeing your standard dv
camcorder footage, and making a DVD video, and then
taking that footage and reediting it and making a
second dvd.

The first dvd looks very mooshy compared to the
footage you shot, and then when you reedit it, you
loose so much. Now you want to put that re-edited
footage onto a second DVD. I can only imagine how bad
that will look.


HDV is already a compressed format to a lossy file
type. When you edit it, and save, it is even more
lossy. At some point, you will have to save it to
DVD.... YUCK!

Maybe Panasonic will make it's own format that is
50meg, 24P, 720P widescreen.
And when all the television manufactures realize that
they can make their images look better by enhancing
their refresh rates, and "jitter" from this format
will be a non-issue with a higher refresh rate
television.





--
www.fiveminutesoffame.com
Get your five minutes of FAME

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Five" <Niko@fiveminutesof____.com> wrote in message
news:BPh0d.411152$%_6.52264@attbi_s01...
> Some people are getting hyped up about the new HDV
> format, but to me it is like takeing your standard dv
> camcorder footage, and making a DVD video, and then
> taking that footage and reediting it and making a
> second dvd.
>
Back in the 50s (last century :-) The people shooting 35mm said the
thing about the people shooting 16mm, and the people shooting 16mm
said the same thing about the people shooting 8mm. It was as true
then as it is today.

However by that philosophy, you shouldn't shoot anything unless you
can aford to do it right. Shoot everything to 65mm and print it to 70mm
and keep those damn computers away from your pristeen images.

HDV is a consumer format, and is targeted at people that have HDTVs
in their family room. By what we've heard HDV is better than DV,
especially when viewed on a HD set. DV was a designed to be a
consumer format, and had much more compression than any profesional
would ever want to put their name on. Guess what? there a lot of people
that call themselves profesional doing entire projects in DV.

I have a client that has me do computer graphics and titles for their
productions (hospital related training tapes). They shoot on DV, Edit DV
in FCP and have me deliver my graphics on CDs in DV format. I don't
particularly like the way it looks, but the client is happy and they
pay their bills. What more can I ask?

> The first dvd looks very mooshy compared to the
> footage you shot, and then when you reedit it, you
> loose so much. Now you want to put that re-edited
> footage onto a second DVD. I can only imagine how bad
> that will look.
>

Your example has only limited merit. HDV has as much bandwidth
as DV does. The difference is that it uses a more efficient form of
compression to allow for much more detail. Viewed from a distance,
I wouldn't expect recompressed HDV to look dramitically worse
than recompressed DV. It's the same amount of bandwidth after all.
Will there be noticable losses? Yeah, but there are significant losses
when you print 65mm down to 35mm for distribution, but the folks
go to the theater anyway.

> HDV is already a compressed format to a lossy file
> type. When you edit it, and save, it is even more
> lossy. At some point, you will have to save it to
> DVD.... YUCK!
>
At the moment we can't save it to DVD (in the home) unless we
down-convert it to SD. We have to go back to tape or convert it
to something else with playback limited to computers.

> Maybe Panasonic will make it's own format that is
> 50meg, 24P, 720P widescreen.
>
They already do. They have DVCpro HD in 100mbs and
I think 50mbs too. Sony has even less compressed formats.
You are more than welcome to use any of those, but they
aren't consumer formats, so expect to pay a lot more.

> And when all the television manufactures realize that
> they can make their images look better by enhancing
> their refresh rates, and "jitter" from this format
> will be a non-issue with a higher refresh rate
> television.
>
Upping the refresh rate might help with the jitters from
interlaced video, but it does little for the issues discussed above.

David

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"david.mccall" <david.mccallUNDERLINE@comcast.net> wrote in message
newsRi0d.167885$mD.163938@attbi_s02...
> I have a client that has me do computer graphics and titles for their
> productions (hospital related training tapes). They shoot on DV, Edit DV
> in FCP and have me deliver my graphics on CDs in DV format. I don't
> particularly like the way it looks, but the client is happy and they
> pay their bills. What more can I ask?
>


but on the other hand a significant number of successful features are being
done in DV.. I suppose the differentiation is that these features usually
get a lot more post processing, color correction and film transfers. I
actually like the look of well done DV footage. (silly me) I haven't seen it
yet but I understand the feature "open water" ( I think that's the title)
was shot with a PD-150. Add another one to the growing list. I liked "28
days after" also. Depressing as it was.

The only thing I see as a drawback is the MPEG2 part of it. Mostly because
of the technical aspects. Not to mention rendering time, as another poster
pointed out better than I can.

Of course the key to this is inexpensive high speed, high density storage
local to the camera.

In fact, with a camera like this there ought to be a mode where, if you
have a hard drive connected like a firestore, and are capable of 80meg/sec
it will store uncompressed frames. Or 2:1 ... I should think that would not
be hard since the pipe is so much faster than the one that writes to tape,
capture, compress (MPEG2), stream to tape.. Hey Sony!

Still I am excited about the higher resolution. But even in high data rate
MPEG I have seen anomolies in the shadows, etc..

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"nappy" <no_spam_@sorry.com> wrote in message
news:fIj0d.13880$QJ3.11731@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> but on the other hand a significant number of successful features are
being
> done in DV.. I suppose the differentiation is that these features usually
> get a lot more post processing, color correction and film transfers. I
> actually like the look of well done DV footage. (silly me) I haven't seen
it
> yet but I understand the feature "open water" ( I think that's the title)
> was shot with a PD-150. Add another one to the growing list. I liked "28
> days after" also. Depressing as it was.
>
> The only thing I see as a drawback is the MPEG2 part of it. Mostly because
> of the technical aspects. Not to mention rendering time, as another
poster
> pointed out better than I can.
>
> Of course the key to this is inexpensive high speed, high density storage
> local to the camera.
>
> In fact, with a camera like this there ought to be a mode where, if you
> have a hard drive connected like a firestore, and are capable of
80meg/sec
> it will store uncompressed frames. Or 2:1 ... I should think that would
not
> be hard since the pipe is so much faster than the one that writes to tape,
> capture, compress (MPEG2), stream to tape.. Hey Sony!
>
> Still I am excited about the higher resolution. But even in high data rate
> MPEG I have seen anomolies in the shadows, etc..
>
All good points. We always have the desire for excellent quality video, but
you know that the medium is only a small part of the whole. Lighting,
camera-work, audio, settings & props, actors, scripts, direction, costumes,
etc., etc., are all very important too. It might be safe to say that any
two,
of the above combined would have a greater impact on the final production
than the image quality alone. If you can get good quality in all of those
other
areas, then you have a movie, even if you shoot it on hi-8. If it's really
good,
then it might not be that hard to get a real HD camera for the next one.

I'm not sure how quick Sony will be to shoot themselves in the foot, by
making a camera at this price point be good enough for professional work.
Of course it is possible though.

I'm looking forward to playing with one of these toys.

David

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Some of my messages don't seem to be staying on the server. Two post back
only a 15 minutes ago, the post was gone before I got to it. I'll try to
repost it.

Anybody know why this would be?

David

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

You folks might be interested in taking a look at a clip shot with the new
Sony HDV camera. I'll quote the post verbatim from the Sony Vegas forum. I
have my opinions but I'll wait until others have seen it. Enjoy.

Mike


Hi all-

I recently shot a little demo piece using a prototype of the just announced
Sony HDV cameras. This footage is being used as part of our presentation at
IBC in Amsterdam but I thought some of you might want to check it out too.

Camera: I can't respond in any sort of depth about the camera details other
than to say it really rocks- excellent quality all around, very much in the
PD-170 class of fit and finish, image quality and ergonomics. There will be
tons of official info released in the next couple of months so I won't go
into this any further here.

What I shot: Using a Sony HDV PAL prototype (very low #), I shot flowers and
various nature scenes here in Madsion on a bright summer day. All shots are
statics (I had only a cheap tripod available at that time so I didn't do any
slick crane shots or anything). All footage shot in 1080i PAL, factory
settings, no add-on filters. Manual exposure, manual focus at all times. I
tried to show off color, contrast, DOF and detail etc.

How I edited: I used an (unreleased*) capture app to pull the footage off
the camera. Footage was loaded on the Vegas timeline (shipping version,
Vegas 5.0b), project settings 1440x1080, upper field first, PAR 1.333,
25fps, audio 16/48. A few dissolves, an ACID-created music bed, and Vegas'
text generator were used. No color correction was used- footage is straight
off the camera.

* Capture- right now this camera isn't shipping and even if you got your
hands on one, Vegas 5.0b cannot capture HDV natively. This will of course be
addressed in a future version of Vegas, details TBA. Cineform will also be
updating their capture applet to work with Sony HDV in the future, some
other capture alternatives may also possibly surface soon.

Delivery: It'll be awhile before everybody has an HDTV set and it'll also
take awhile for disc-based HD players to proliferate but probably everybody
reading this has a high rez display sitting a foot from their face right
now- your computer screen. HDV is great for computer delivery! So I rendered
the project in Vegas 5.0b to Windows Media using the following settings:

Audio: CBR, WMA9, 192/48
Video: CBR, WMV9, 1280x720, 25fps, 5 kfps, smoothness=90, 5Mbs

On my barebones 2.4 Dell this project took ~7 minutes to render (crossfades,
title overlay throughout, mask on the very last shot under the title, "best"
quality).

How you should play it: Download the file to your computer. Open in Windows
Media Player. When the video starts, hit alt-enter and WMP should go to full
screen.

This file plays back fine on Sony laptops so it should playback fine on any
decent desktop. If you can't play it back in WMP without hiccups, surf on
over to Microsoft - there's quite a bit of info on how to test and tweak
your system for HD playback.

File location:

The URL: ftp://md-ftp.sonypictures.com

Username/Password (case-sensitive):
dude
Sweetn3ss

------------------------
We can't answer a mountain of further questions about all this right now
(and sorry, I can't provide native HDV footage from the Sony cameras) but we
look forward to reading your reponses. Have fun-

-Sony Vegas engineering team

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Bad log in.
The user name and password has been blocked already. Is there
somewhere that is NOT on a ftp server that we can download the clip?


>You folks might be interested in taking a look at a clip shot with the new
>Sony HDV camera. I'll quote the post verbatim from the Sony Vegas forum. I
>have my opinions but I'll wait until others have seen it. Enjoy.

>The URL: ftp://md-ftp.sonypictures.com
>Username/Password (case-sensitive):
>dude
>Sweetn3ss

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Nope... the file's gone.


"Mike Kujbida" <kujfam-misleadingspam@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:2qeg9aFuvrcvU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> You folks might be interested in taking a look at a clip shot with the new
> Sony HDV camera. I'll quote the post verbatim from the Sony Vegas forum.
I
> have my opinions but I'll wait until others have seen it. Enjoy.
>
> Mike


[snip]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

It's there -- you have to download it, rather than open it.

"Jon Erlandson" <jerlands@no_spam_sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Mwv0d.76$jV1.14@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
> Nope... the file's gone.
>
>
> "Mike Kujbida" <kujfam-misleadingspam@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:2qeg9aFuvrcvU1@uni-berlin.de...
>>
>> You folks might be interested in taking a look at a clip shot with the
>> new
>> Sony HDV camera. I'll quote the post verbatim from the Sony Vegas forum.
> I
>> have my opinions but I'll wait until others have seen it. Enjoy.
>>
>> Mike
>
>
> [snip]
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

How did you log in?

"PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
news:FWx0d.18819$e%7.1911@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
> It's there -- you have to download it, rather than open it.
>
> "Jon Erlandson" <jerlands@no_spam_sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:Mwv0d.76$jV1.14@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
> > Nope... the file's gone.
> >
> >
> > "Mike Kujbida" <kujfam-misleadingspam@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:2qeg9aFuvrcvU1@uni-berlin.de...
> >>
> >> You folks might be interested in taking a look at a clip shot with the
> >> new
> >> Sony HDV camera. I'll quote the post verbatim from the Sony Vegas
forum.
> > I
> >> have my opinions but I'll wait until others have seen it. Enjoy.
> >>
> >> Mike
> >
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 04:06:03 -0400, "Robert Morein"
<nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:

>How did you log in?

It works just as said in the opening post. Try again if you please.

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 16:14:31 -0400, "Mike Kujbida"
<kujfam-misleadingspam@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>
>You folks might be interested in taking a look at a clip shot with the new
>Sony HDV camera. I'll quote the post verbatim from the Sony Vegas forum. I
>have my opinions but I'll wait until others have seen it. Enjoy.
>
>Mike
The video looked great viewing it on a Sony GDM-F520 computer monitor
in Windows Media Player...

Thanks for sharing that...
Glenn M


A GREAT DAY FOR FREEDOM...Pink Floyd

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Glenn M wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 16:14:31 -0400, "Mike Kujbida"
> <kujfam-misleadingspam@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>You folks might be interested in taking a look at a clip shot with the new
>>Sony HDV camera. I'll quote the post verbatim from the Sony Vegas forum. I
>>have my opinions but I'll wait until others have seen it. Enjoy.
>>
>>Mike
>
> The video looked great viewing it on a Sony GDM-F520 computer monitor
> in Windows Media Player...
>
> Thanks for sharing that...
> Glenn M
>
>
> A GREAT DAY FOR FREEDOM...Pink Floyd
Myself, I am working on several projects with one thing in common.
The common factor is: Video will only be played back on a PC display.
No TV:s ever.
Presently I work with DV.
Living in PAL-land, I get 720*576 pixels.

I want more pixels and I want better-looking pixels.
Cost is definitely an objective.

I don't (normally) want interlace.
Simple rule:
If the playback equipment (e.g. household TV:s) is interlaced, then
shoot interlaced.
If the playback equipment (e.g. computer screens) is non-interlaced
(progressive) then shoot progressive (if at all possible).

The sample looks very promising. Since there is no fast movement in the
sample, interlace is not a problem, and the picture quality looks good!

/Johan S

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

PTRAVEL wrote:

> It's there -- you have to download it, rather than open it.

"530 - user anonymous, cannot log in"

Gary Eickmeier

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> PTRAVEL wrote:
>
>> It's there -- you have to download it, rather than open it.
>
> "530 - user anonymous, cannot log in"
>
> Gary Eickmeier


Just tried it now and it still works for me (using IE 6).

Mike