Shooting in HD but editing in SD ????
by BonesOne4
on
Aug 24, 2007 at 1:25:27 pm
Hey Guys Quick Question. What Is Meant when Someone Says They Shoot In High Def But Then Its A Good Idea To Edit In Standard Def??? I Get The Whole Concept But Not Really Sure How The Whole Workflow Works. If U Shoot In Hd, Are They Saying U Should Convert It To Sd And Edit The Movie That Way??? And Then From There, Export It Out Back To Hd????can Someone Explain A Little Bit To Me? Im Confused.
Re: Shooting in HD but editing in SD ???? by Jeff Brown on Aug 24, 2007 at 2:07:57 pm
1)Shoot in HD.
2)Downconvert to SD with matching timecode, so you can edit cheaply, such as with DV.
3)Approve the edit.
4)"Conform" the edit, which means go back and duplicate the show, but with the HD source: capture only what you need to HD, (re)edit on HD equipment. Add HD graphics. Master to HD.
Since maybe 80-90% of your time will be spent doing the edit in DV, you can save storage & money.
Re: Shooting in HD but editing in SD ???? by DSE/Spot on Aug 24, 2007 at 2:17:06 pm
this is quite common.
What NLE do you use? The NLE determines the workflow.
For example, in Sony Vegas, you'd shoot/capture HD. Then edit using an SD proxy, and output via SD, and/or replace the proxy with HD and output for HD. It's a one-button operation.
Other NLE's aren't quite the same, and some will require re-capturing the original footage if you wish to output HD.
All of the HDV decks offer a downconvert.
Douglas Spotted Eagle
VASST
Aerial Camera/Instructor
Certified Sony Vegas Trainer
Re: Shooting in HD but editing in SD ???? by BonesOne4 on Aug 24, 2007 at 2:40:32 pm
Im shooting a movie for the web but still want to shoot it in HD. What I'd do is take the footage and import it into Final Cut Express HD. From there I'd make my edits and export out to HD for viewing on my 50inch TV. But also, Id export a small version for my website.
Re: Shooting in HD but editing in SD ???? by Ed Dooley on Aug 24, 2007 at 4:57:55 pm
If by HD you mean HDV, then why not shoot it and edit it in HDV? We do it all the time. What Jeff was referring to (I hope) is if you're shooting in "real" HD (no flames please!), meaning a very high data rate. There are savings in horsepower and storage by editing in SD then going to HD from that (conforming). But if you're talking about HDV, it's the same (or smaller) data rate as DV, so stay in HDV then compress that for the web, it will look better.
Ed
Re: Shooting in HD but editing in SD ???? by zrb123 on Aug 24, 2007 at 7:15:44 pm
[Ed Dooley]"f by HD you mean HDV, then why not shoot it and edit it in HDV? We do it all the time. What Jeff was referring to (I hope) is if you're shooting in "real" HD (no flames please!)"
Please remember that by definition HDV is "real HD" The other forms of HD are just less compressed then HDV.
Re: Shooting in HD but editing in SD ???? by Ed Dooley on Aug 25, 2007 at 2:31:24 pm
But for the purposes of editing, "real" HD needs a whole lot more horsepower. Even the highly-compressed DVCPro HD has over 4 times the data rate of HDV, therefore, a lot more "horsepower" is needed. That was the distinction I was making. Maybe taking a cue from the Cow would be best, High-end vs. HDV. :-)
Ed
[zrb123] Please remember that by definition HDV is "real HD" The other forms of HD are just less compressed then HDV."
"[Ed Dooley] "f by HD you mean HDV, then why not shoot it and edit it in HDV? We do it all the time. What Jeff was referring to (I hope) is if you're shooting in "real" HD (no flames please!)"
Re: Shooting in HD but editing in SD ???? by zrb123 on Aug 25, 2007 at 3:03:31 pm
Again HDV is "REAL" HD please look up the definition of HD. I will not disagree that other forms of HD are much more desirable.
Calling HDV not "real" HD is like calling DV not "real" SD.
[Ed Dooley]"Maybe taking a cue from the Cow would be best, High-end vs. HDV"
Just because there are separate here on the cow douse not make HDV not real HD. It is because the technologies used are much different. But HDV and other forms of HD ALL give you a REAL HD image.
In no way am I saying that HDV is the equal to other forms of HD, but when people say that HDV is not REAL HD, it makes them sound like they do not understand what HD is.
Simply put HD video is any video that has a higher resolution then 720x480 NTSC or 768
Re: Shooting in HD but editing in SD ???? by Ron Lindeboom on Aug 25, 2007 at 3:28:21 pm
Guys, you are both right...
HDV is "real" HD. (BTW: I liked your point that saying HDV is not real HD is like saying that DV is not real SD. Can I use that saying, or do you have it trademarked somewhere?) ;o)
Since it was mentioned that we separated the forums, here is why...
We did not separate the forums and call one "Real HD" and the other, "HD Fakery." They are both HD formats, just as there are a wide range of SD codecs out there that output image qualities of varying degrees.
Still, as pointed out, we did separate them as there are indeed two distinct sets of "need" here and things that will and do work for HDV's lower data rates do not always work for other more data-intensive HD formats.
The separation was "need" based and I regret ever calling it "High End" and wish I'd come up with some other moniker. ;o)
I think you guys are in far more agreement than you may read into one another.
Re: Shooting in HD but editing in SD ???? by Jeff Brown on Aug 26, 2007 at 8:36:39 pm
Yes, I was referring to "uncompressed" HD, high data-rate HD, or whatever you wish to call it. The kind of HD that is typically offlined in SD first. HDV-- exactly right: might as well edit it just as is, you can even do it off a FW drive. Same data rate as SD-DV.
Re: Shooting in HD but editing in SD ???? by Ed Dooley on Aug 27, 2007 at 4:19:10 pm
I was smiling when I said "real" HD (should have put a smiley face!), and I'm extremely pleased with the images I get with my JVC HD110. However, I look at HDV much the same way I looked at (and referred to) DV when it first appeared. The images you could get from the VX1000 were very inferior to the images we were getting with our "real" SD cameras (couldn't resist). Sure they were both SD, but 2/3" CCDs and very expensive glass blew away the cheap DV cams with 1/3" CCDs and inferior optics. Just as a $60,000 Varicam with $15,000 lens makes much better images than my HD110. When I start shooting with a $20,000 2/3" HDV camera maybe I'll come around the same way I did when DV went bigger.
BTW, Ron, I think High-end is a good description of the differences
Ed
P.S. Have I said I'm very happy with my HDV camera? :-)
