HDV workflow in CS3
by Ian Lautsch
on
Mar 28, 2008 at 8:09:30 pm
I know there have been quite a number of threads on here about this, but I have yet to find a straight answer.
What is the most efficient way to edit HDV footage in AE?
I shoot on a Canon XH A1. I import to FCP Studio 2. THen I use the actual QT files from the capture scratch and import them into AE. I create a proxy using photo jpg and edit with that. THen I export using lossless QT animation in full size 1920 x 1080.
Only problem is now FCP has a hard time playing the QT Animations. I get whole sections with graphics that skip in the preview window even when fully rendered.
Is the use of an intermediate codec like apple intermediate or ProRes better? And is there a lot of quality loss when using these?
Re: HDV workflow in CS3 by Dave LaRonde on Mar 28, 2008 at 9:22:44 pm
[Ian Lautsch]"What is the most efficient way to edit HDV footage in AE?"
I'm sure you meant "work with HDV footage in AE". You're well aware that AE doesn't like HDV.
If you don't mind that you could only work in AE on an FCP6+ equipped machine, I suggest capturing in FCP using ProRes. Since I don't deal with HDV, I haven't a clue how to do it.
I've heard many, many good things about ProRes. It stands up well in the FCP-AE-FCP work flow.
Re: HDV workflow in CS3 by Darby Edelen on Mar 28, 2008 at 11:40:49 pm
[Ian Lautsch]"I wonder if it sacrifices much quality though?"
ProRes is a much better codec than HDV is to begin with. Your concerns could be equated to the concern that dressing a pig in a dress might get the dress dirty... or something like that, I'm not great with analogies but I think the point gets across =)
Darby Edelen Designer Left Coast Digital Santa Cruz, CA
Re: HDV workflow in CS3 by Ian Lautsch on Mar 29, 2008 at 12:57:33 am
lol nice, I get your point. So capturing in ProRes is better the native HDV codec? HMM seems strange, but then again if it's really meant for capturing true HD and sources of higher resolution than I can see that.
Re: HDV workflow in CS3 by Paolo Ciccone on Mar 29, 2008 at 3:29:00 pm
Capturing as in *direct* capturing will be better in ProRes but capturing from the HDV tape to ProRes will cause transcoding. This means that a small portion of your data stream will be lost because of the lossy nature of ProRes. You can c convert to Uncompressed or SheerVideo (http://www.bitjazz.com) and use a script ( http://www.popcornisland.com/downloads ) to import the FCP XML project directly inside AE without rendering an external clip.
--
Paolo Ciccone http://www.paolociccone.com
Hellriser Digital
Santa Cruz, CA
Re: HDV workflow in CS3 by Brendan Coots on Mar 29, 2008 at 11:41:09 pm
You may not realize this, but HDV is the same exact quality as Mini-DV (25Mbps). You could convert it to cave painting and it would hold up, so I wouldn't even worry about which codec you convert to, as long as it supports HD it will be better than HDV and will play better with your apps. ProRes is an option, but you might be better off with something less processor intensive since that is the core of your post. The way you are handling output from FCP right now is probably fine.
It sounds to me like your workflow is ok right up to the point that you render out of AE for re-import to FCP. At this stage, maybe you should consider rendering proxies out of AE (motion-jpeg, etc.) to be used in the edit until the cut is locked, THEN render your lossless files from AE and fold back in to FCP for final output. The only way around this is to render to a lossy format out of AE, which you probably don't want in your final cut anyway.
Re: HDV workflow in CS3 by Darby Edelen on Mar 30, 2008 at 2:49:03 am
The only thing I would add to this is that HDV is MPEG-2 encoded, which uses interframe compression that AE doesn't particularly like. This can result in render errors such as stuttering frames, dropped frames or green pixelation. Which is why I recommend to not even import HDV footage into AE until you've transcoded it.
Darby Edelen Designer Left Coast Digital Santa Cruz, CA
Re: HDV workflow in CS3 by Brendan Coots on Mar 30, 2008 at 5:55:49 pm
Oh yeah, I forgot that little chestnut even though it's really the worst aspect of HDV.
I should add one more thing here - We've been testing the SheerVideo codec and the results are truly stunning. Way smaller file sizes and the same quality level as Animation codec. If you are looking for an intermediary codec Ian, this one would work great. We may even adopt it as our primary codec for everything.
Re: HDV workflow in CS3 by Ian Lautsch on Mar 31, 2008 at 6:26:58 am
Thanks so much guys, I appreciate all the great info. I am going to look into the sheer video, that seems pretty cool and if it work as seamlessly as it sound like, then it will be the way to go.
Re: HDV workflow in CS3 by Darby Edelen on Mar 28, 2008 at 10:09:00 pm
[Ian Lautsch]"I create a proxy using photo jpg and edit with that."
Your final render will not use proxies to render with, so you will still be rendering using the HDV footage which can cause problems for AE. Convert your HDV footage to something nicer after (or during) capture.
Darby Edelen Designer Left Coast Digital Santa Cruz, CA
