Is HD-24p 1280x720 good enough? Indie Movies & Documentaries

	Re: Is HD-24p 1280x720 good enough? Indie Movies & Documentaries by D. Eric Franks on Sep 9, 2009 at 2:21:49 pm Lots of great questions, so I'm pretty confident you've got this worked out. Just a couple of comments: (1) I'd shoot as high-res as you can. You can always down-scale, but upscaling is always a losing proposition, however... (2) 720p is a great format that will be fine anyhow, especially for distribution on the Internet and computers in general. Besides this being the current base HD format on YouTube, Vimeo, et al, it'll also fit on more computer screens (not everyone is running around with 1080p laptops!). Even so... (3) I'd still shoot in 1080p. See #1. (4) I'd also max the quality on the camera and not worry about space. Memory cards are pretty cheap, so I'd go grab another one. Once again, you can always down-sample quality, but you can never ever go the other direction. (5) I'm not certain what the crazy "1990x180x12" format is, but I know what it means: 1990 across, 180 up and down (really narrow!) and 12-bit color (kinda strange, but not outrageous). 1920x1080@24 is pretty standard 8-bit per channel color. As to your OBJECTIVE (and a little summary), I'd say that you cannot maximize quality and minimize file size at the same time. You can either compromise with mediocre quality and medium-sized files or you can pick one or the other. My recommendation is that you get more memory cards/HDD space and don't worry about file size and efficiency. Go for maximum quality source/edit and don't worry about render times. Render overnight. Render when you're watching TV. Render during dinner. Use render times to play XBox or post on the CCow. Now, when you get to distribution, THEN you need to figure out a reasonable compromise between file size and quality, but that is a whole other post... _____________ "The length of a film should be directly related to the endurance of the human bladder." -- Alfred Hitchcock http://videopia.org Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index

	Re: Is HD-24p 1280x720 good enough? Indie Movies & Documentaries by D. Eric Franks on Sep 9, 2009 at 10:14:57 pm If you'll let me toggle Old Man Mode on: Why, back in my day, we didn't have real time previews. And a 3 minute video took all night to render. And we had to walk to the studio in the snow in bare feet. Ahem. OK, so the last bit is untrue, but it might illustrate why I am not at all bothered by large files, "slow" transfer times and long renders. And it might explain why I still recommend recording at maximum quality: you never know when a flea's naughty bits are gonna be important and you will regret the lower quality mode. As to slow transfers, why, in my day, data transfers happened in real time. You shot an hour of video? That took an hour to transfer. Oh, sorry, forgot to turn Old Man Mode back off... Anyhow, I'm a nightmare as far as disk organization goes, so don't listen to a word I say on that. My solution to inefficiency is to buy new hard disks all the time. OK, now the two interesting parts: (1) Workflow: MTS and other modern, highly compressed H.264 files are incredibly computationally intensive and do not play nicely with even the latest muscular computers. Next gen computers will be better, but by then, the camera people will have figured out a new "better" format to mess with us. I would just give up on realtime previews, learn to live with lower preview quality and, when necessary, SHIFT+B to render small sections to RAM to check the quality of important bits. I'm probably SHIFT+B previewing once every few minutes near the end of a project, checking final tweaks and what not. I definitely would NOT render to a lossy format (like WMV) and then RE-render to stitch it together. Definitely not. You want to keep as few render cycles in your workflow as possible, i.e., one (if you can). If do want to pre-render to speed things up you can (a) render out to a lossless format (QT MOV animation codec - HUUUUUGGGGEEEE files) or (b) Shift+M to selectively render in Vegas 9. Same same, just different technique: your call. (2) Distribution to WMV at 6Mbps should look very nice at 720p. Personally, I like Main Concept's H.264/AVC in the MP4 format (a bit more compatible with more computers, maybe looks better, maybe not). Vimeo/YouTube sits at 2Mbps, so you can go that low for really efficient distribution. Oh, and one more thing: Your observation about planning is exactly spot on. The more time you spend in planning, the more time you will save in production. Now, you won't actually save any time at all, and, for example, if you spend 2 hours in planning and 1 shooting, you could reverse that to 1 hour of planning and 2 hours of shooting: either way, it's 3 hours. However, the actually shooting bit is the most difficult part and the most stressful... but it could be the most fun part too, so I'd recommend 2 hours of planning and then a really fun, energetic 1 hour of shooting. If you have that choice. And you should probably listen to what I say and not what I actually do: I never seem to spend enough time planning! Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index

	Re: Is HD-24p 1280x720 good enough? Indie Movies & Documentaries by D. Eric Franks on Sep 10, 2009 at 9:52:37 pm I guess it's possible that there's a WMV lossless mode, but I've never heard of it. Basically, WMV is just Microsoft's flavor of H.264, like DivX has there's and MainConcept and Apple and... Some follow the ITU-T H.264 and ISO/IEC MPEG-4 AVC standards more closely than others and my understanding is that Microsoft mucked about with their version more than other did, but I'll admit that was just a rumor I heard long ago (probably when I had lunch with the president of MainConcept... KIDDING). Anyhoo, there's no question WMV is a great codec, but there's also no question that more standardized MP4 will be more broadly compatible on Windows, OS X, iPods, etc. Ultimately, whatever works, right? But H.264, by any other name, is not typically implemented as a lossless codec (although I believe that as a part of the spec, it can be). There are a number of lossless options, including Uncompressed AVI and QuickTime using a couple of codecs, like the Animation codec or PNG. I used to use PNG, but it really only offers a slight advantage in file size and is a lot more computationally intensive (read: slower renders), so, once again, I just buy more hard disks (which is also my solution to archives - I know, I'm lazy). Data rate is going to be the fun part to play with and is almost everything there is to worry about in terms of quality. Again, 2Mbps is YouTube HD (pretty much a good minimum), 4Mbps is going to look very nice, 10Mbps is spectacular and (as you've noted) 17-25Mbps is a pretty decent acquisition format. And, yes, 2 generations ago 2 core CPU laptops are not going to be fun to edit H.264 video on. It'll even struggle on playback of HD video, much less on editing. Maybe WMV is just easier for Windows to play back? Possible. Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index

	Re: Is HD-24p 1280x720 good enough? Indie Movies & Documentaries by Dave Haynie on Sep 29, 2009 at 2:14:39 pm Watch the Main Concept CODEC.. most of the presets there are intended for devices, like iPods, not something similar to Blu-Ray in quality. Perhaps you can set up a higher quality output (I've actually been messing around with this), but not without a much higher bitrate setting. You really don't want to be editing MP4/AVC anymore than you can help it. While obviously that a problem to be solved with an MP4 camcorder, rendering out to MP4 should be considered a delivery format only, not a thing for re-editing. AVC is very CPU intensive, moreso than any other format at least currently in common use. As an example... 1080/60p video from my Sanyo VPC-FH1 (twice the usual amount of information) takes about 65-75% of my Q9550's CPU (eg, all four cores) just to play back in full resolution and full 60fps speed. It's much better with GPU-accelerate playback, but you need a player that does this. Now, you can go faster, but the Q9550 is still a fairly respectable CPU. Now imagine the resources you're spending trying to edit that, particularly since Vegas, like most other NLEs, seems to use only the one CPU for rendering during edits, and no GPU acceleration. This is the problem with AVCHD and other MP4 editing today. WMV (the latest version of which follows the open VC-1 standard) is hardly lossless. It's not quite as sophisticated as AVC, but it has a family resemblance... some of the same people were involved in both. WMV was designed to require fewer resources, particularly on playback, so yeah, on your relatively slow machine, it should play back better. Microsoft also set their original WMV/HD standard to use 720/30p video... easier to fit on a DVD, easier to play back on PCs and devices that couldn't handle AVC just yet. Nothing wrong with WMV. If your main distribution target is PCs rather than DVD/BD players, you can technically create a WMV/HD DVD that'll play automatically on a Windows PC when inserted, complete with menus and everything. Quality is not Blu-Ray level, but hey, you're watching on a PC, so you're not looking for that, usually, anyway. Authoring is a bear.. this was never successful enough to spawn lots of authoring tools. Before BD, anyway, I used to hack these by hand... HTML and JavaScript, you see.. -Dave Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index

	Re: Is HD-24p 1280x720 good enough? Indie Movies & Documentaries by Norman Willis on Sep 11, 2009 at 2:36:48 pm Hi Alan. >>The file size difference between MXP & SP is about 3 to 1. File ratio between MXP & SP+ about 2 to 1. I'm not Mr. Expert, but I agree with Eric. Hard drive space is cheap cheap cheap nowadays. Use the larger file size, especially if you are going to get a stronger workhorse. Norman Willis www.nazareneisrael.org Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index

	Re: Is HD-24p 1280x720 good enough? Indie Movies & Documentaries by Dave Haynie on Sep 29, 2009 at 9:22:40 am Ok, let's look here... The HF11 is a good camcorder. Use it if you're shooting video. The TX5.. I have a TX5. It's a great pocket P&S camcorder, and sure, you can get a little video on it. Much better than a "Flip", but take a close look... that's highly compressed motion JPEG. It's chock full of artifacts you won't see in the Canon's video. Also, the Panasonic has weird autofocus seeking behavior. This is due to its origins as a still camera. A video camera may need to trim focus regularly, but it needs to do this in a way that's not so obvious, or no one will use the autofocus. A still camera needs to find the focus quickly, but just use it for one frame. They have improved this a bit in the latest firmware (do get the upgrade, from the Panasonic site), but I still find it dicey compared to real video. So on to your questions: 1. Use 1080/24p. It is not even slightly overkill "for what the human eye sees anyhow". The human eye has 6 million color sensitive photo receptors (cones) and 120 million luma sensitive photo receptors (rods and cones). You can see all benefits of HD, you can see the compression artifacts in HD, you can see the benefits of 4K (four times the data per picture as HD), all of that. It just depends on what you're using to view it. The 15" TV in my kitchen will not do justice to 1080p HD.. the 71" TV in my media room will. 2. Is 720/24p good enough for video on a 42" TV? Well, it's better than 480/24p... and there have been a number of excellent films shot on 480/24p. Like "28 Days". Many others. There are plenty of bad films shot on 35mm, too. For full visual acuity on a 42" TV at 1080p, the average person should sit about 5.5 feet (there are standards from SMPTE and THX about this, based on the viewing angle, too). At around 15 feet, you're at the maximum distance to resolve 720p. So basically, if you're closer than 15ft, you'll get some benefit from 1080p. Unless you have lousy vision. 3. WMV at 4.8Mb/s for 720/24p? Well, sure, that'll work. I made my own WMV/HD discs for some years (before Blu-Ray), and generally went to around 6-8Mb/s for 720/60i (cut down from 1080/60i). Obviously, the image improves with bitrate. You can't make any blanket statements.. 3Mb/s (the standard rate for 720p DivX-HD) may look good on slow moving video, but fail big on sports video. Content matters. 4. Wasting time and space? Nonsense! You should always shoot as high as you might ever need. Storage is cheap (says the guy with 3TB in the PC, 640GB in the laptop, and 8TB of external drive storage), reshooting and regrets are not. I have entered web contests for video (even won one.. look up hoagiefest.com) and kept it 1080i or 1080p all the way to the point I crank out that cheesy 480x360 video for upload. I can always render a better version (which I actually did.. "hazydave" channel on YouTube)... but if I shot in lower resolution, I can't. That doesn't mean you need to shoot a film in 1080/60p or forget about it. But even considering deliver in 720/24p, I would shoot and master at 1080/24p. Of course, I'm not trying to squeeze this onto a DVD... I'd made a Blu-Ray, then downconvert to a real DVD-Video for the Blu-laser-challenged among us. 5. 1990x180x12? Someone's confused... whatever you're using (Windows?) to view the properties may not be well versed in the ways of AVCHD. The MOV stuff (MJPEG in a QuickTime wrapper) is much more well established (eg, it's old fashioned). 6. You want to speed up "import and editing process" with smaller clips. Well, first of all, if you're editing in Vegas, there's no import time. You mean, copy-from-the-camera time? Is your film that unimportant that this is a big deal? I shoot 2-3 of my daughter's soccer games a week, in 1080/60p, and think transfers from a flash-based camera are The Bomb. You get that way, after 20 years of tape :-) As for editing, yeah, AVCHD is slow. AVCHD at 720/24p is still slow. Two ways to go here. One is to use an intermediate CODEC. I use CineForm. While it's true a short video I'm doing (soccer highlights from 2008) is currently occupying 462GB of Hard drive with all that Cineform, it's fast editing. I mean, like, wiz though the video with your jog-shuttle-wheel fast. No waiting. It's like editing DV, only in HD. MPEG-2 is too slow for more than casual editing, AVCHD editing is just self-flagellation. The alternative: use a proxy. Go buy "Gearshift" for Vegas. You can edit in SD, nice and fast (but ugly on that second 1200p monitor, compared to the full HD). Switch to HD when you want to see HD. There are other options, but proxy editing is the other path to sanity. > I'll get my prosumer camera in the future :-) The HF11 is a dandy camera, plenty of prosumer appeal in there. And these have evolved fast... my "Pro" Sony from some years back was pretty much matched by the Canon HV10/HV20 only a few years later, at least in image quality. And the HV20 added 24p! Now I have this frickin' $400 Sanyo, and it's even at least in the same quality ballpark, and offers 1080/60p and 30p modes (and some others). And it's dang near pocket sized. Your camera is not the problem. But your sound might be. If you're shooing a film to be watched by actual humans, don't forget that they have ears. The built-in mics on every camcorder ever made suck. Use an external mic or two, or a field recorder. Or a PC. Or all of the above. Pristine 1080/24p video, with perfect lighting and editing and everything else you can apply is still unwatchable is the audio sucks. -Dave Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index

	Re: Is HD-24p 1280x720 good enough? Indie Movies & Documentaries by Norman Willis on Sep 29, 2009 at 6:31:17 pm >>I actually use Cakewalk Sonar for additional audio but plan to get the Zoom H4 as a more portable recording medium. Though I do use Cakewalk for studio recording music etc. You are right audio sucks from most cams especially in wind. My Zoom H4 conked out after less than 30 hours of use, and Zoom refuses to repair it (because it went outside the 30 days, or something). I do not recommend the Zoom H4. It is very confusing, and difficult to navigate. If you don't want to go for the Edirol, then at least get the Zoom H4N (but I would stay away from Zoom, unless you purchase an outside warranty, like a SquareTrade warranty). However, your audio on the camcorder is competent. You just need an XLR adapter, such as a BeachTek, or (better yet), a JuicedLink. I purchased the JuicedLink CX431, and now use the camcorder for all of my audio recording as well. Just throw away the video stream. It's a thought. Norman Willis www.nazareneisrael.org Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index

	Re: Is HD-24p 1280x720 good enough? Indie Movies & Documentaries by Dave Haynie on Oct 15, 2009 at 2:07:21 pm As with camcorders, I have a collection of field recorders. I still use my Sony MD recorder on occasion... it's a bloody pain to have to do an analog transfer back to the PC, but it's very compact. I also have a Tascam recording interface for a PC, which provides phantom power for condenser mics. That's useful in situations that don't require much portability. My main field recorder is the Tascam DR-1... same idea as the Zoom, only it doesn't break as easily. It only does stereo, but at 24-bit, 48kHz uncompressed, it's a happy stereo. You can hook up an external dynamic mic, or run a condenser in via a preamp. Audio on the camcorder is ok.. but just ok. If you're recording in high definition, you're probably recording compressed audio. HDV uses MPEG Layer 2, straight AVCHD uses AC-3, and some of the generic MPEG-4 cameras use AAC. So you can get better audio off-camera. The big improvement, though, is bit depth. Unless you have a sound guy, you're likely to run into trouble field recording when you have at least a 16-bit target (DVD or Blu-Ray), but you're recording in 16-bit. AGC usually crapifies the sound, but if you have 20 to 24-bit audio (always a question just how many of those bits are actually marketing bits), you have plenty of head and leg room. There are two reasons to use an XLR adaptor... you're running 50ft XLR cables to the camcorder, or you're trying to hook up better microphones, those that don't exist on 1/8" plugs. You don't need the low-noise (differential signaling) of XLR going the foot or so from the mic to the camcorder, and there are plenty of good mics available battery powered and capable of hooking into an 1/8" jack. I do have XLR with my Sony (came with), and better mics (one Rode NG-1.. a decent one, about 1/2 the price of the HF-20, though you can spend as much for mics as you did for your camcorder and not be cheated). If you're just after better audio, you can do as well with something like the Rode VideoMic. -Dave Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index