FORUMS: list search recent posts

med quality vs most quality by 170 and 200

COW Forums : Panasonic Cameras

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Geoff Hoffman
med quality vs most quality by 170 and 200
on Jan 23, 2010 at 8:54:59 pm

When logging footage I checked the inspector and noticed this:
With the HVX 200 the codec said most quality
With the HPX 170 the codec said med quality

Cannot figure this out.
When capturing the footage is there indeed a choice or is the
difference just between the two cameras.

Goal of course is to capture the quality in its best codec.


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: med quality vs most quality by 170 and 200
on Jan 23, 2010 at 11:31:07 pm

Medium is just the default setting. It really doesn't mean anything. When you log and transfer and bring the footage in, you are importing it at full quality, just putting the MXF files into a QT wrapper. Zero quality loss.

Shane



GETTING ORGANIZED WITH FINAL CUT PRO DVD...don't miss it.
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Geoff Hoffman
Re: med quality vs most quality by 170 and 200
on Jan 24, 2010 at 4:00:10 pm

Shane,
Appreciate the clarification.

With the fact that the footage is importing at full quality, does it make sense to capture at Apple Pro Res 422 or keep things native (DVCHD 720 24p). Much confusion about this as well. I did some tests and the data transfer is different. Did not notice quality difference though.




Return to posts index


Matthew Sonnenfeld
Re: med quality vs most quality by 170 and 200
on Jan 24, 2010 at 11:41:34 pm

Interesting question. I've wondered about this too. Very often I shoot 1080/24P with my HPX170. Because of the 60i stream I put together a setting in Compressor to remove the 3:2 pulldown and in the process, convert to ProRes 422 HQ. Does converting to a ProRes codec effect quality? Converting to ProRes technically does change the native resolution to 1920x1080 right? (DVCPRO HD I know is subsampled). Is my conversion to ProRes helping me out or would I be better off leaving it as DVCPRO HD?

Panasonic HPX170 P
Unibody Macbook Pro 15 inch, 2.8 Ghz, 4GB RAM
Final Cut Pro Studio 2
Avid Media Composer
The College of WIlliam and Mary


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: med quality vs most quality by 170 and 200
on Jan 24, 2010 at 11:45:46 pm

[Matthew Sonnenfeld] "oes converting to a ProRes codec effect quality?"

Yes. You have added a layer of compression. And you have drastically increased your file sizes. HQ is for 2K and up only.

[Matthew Sonnenfeld] " Converting to ProRes technically does change the native resolution to 1920x1080 right?"

No. The native resolution of that format is 1280x1080. Can't change that. You now make it fill a full raster 1920x1080 size, but it is no longer "native."

[Matthew Sonnenfeld] "DVCPRO HD I know is subsampled)."

Yes, and you can't add back the missing information.

[Matthew Sonnenfeld] "Is my conversion to ProRes helping me out or would I be better off leaving it as DVCPRO HD? "

It isn't helping. Stick with DVCPRO HD.


Shane



GETTING ORGANIZED WITH FINAL CUT PRO DVD...don't miss it.
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Matthew Sonnenfeld
Re: med quality vs most quality by 170 and 200
on Jan 25, 2010 at 3:51:20 am

Thanks Shane!

So, here's my question now. What would be the best way to remove telecine off of the 1080i24P stream and still preserve maximum image quality? As a side thought, the best thing to do would be to probably just shoot in 24PA from now on right? And then I can just remove the advanced pull down during log and transfer? I had been trying to get Cinema Tools to reverse the telecine but for whatever reason it wasn't working with the clips that I had shot.

Also with regards to the subsampling... For playback, the software/hardware upscales it to 1920x1080 so that it can be intercut with other HD footage and so that it can play on standard hardware correct? Am I completely misunderstanding how it works? Obviously since DVCPRO HD has been industry standard for so long, there must be some sort of logic behind how it works with everything else and how it can be used properly, I feel like I may just be missing the mark on how. Could you help me understand this as well? As a Final Cut editor too, I'm trying to understand my workflows as best I can.

Thanks!
- Matt

Panasonic HPX170 P
Unibody Macbook Pro 15 inch, 2.8 Ghz, 4GB RAM
Final Cut Pro Studio 2
Avid Media Composer
The College of WIlliam and Mary


Return to posts index


Shane Ross
Re: med quality vs most quality by 170 and 200
on Jan 25, 2010 at 4:42:16 am

[Matthew Sonnenfeld] " What would be the best way to remove telecine off of the 1080i24P stream and still preserve maximum image quality?"

Use Cinema Tools. But really, if you shot 1080i24p, then you shot a format that wasn't designed for pulldown to be removed. There are 4 options in CT to try, but in my experience, they all don't work. This is why you plan for this before you shoot. If you want to remove pulldown, then you shoot the format that allows for that...1080i 24pA. If you want the 24p look, but still edit at 29.97, then shoot 1080i24p.

[Matthew Sonnenfeld] "As a side thought, the best thing to do would be to probably just shoot in 24PA from now on right?"

If you want to remove pulldown and edit 23.98...yes. But think about this...what format will you be mastering to? DO you really need 23.98 to do that? Can you edit 29.97? If you are going to DVD, then the format you shot is fine. If to tape at 29.97...then the format you shot is fine. Web? Best to shoot an actual progressive format.

[Matthew Sonnenfeld] "And then I can just remove the advanced pull down during log and transfer?"

Yes.

[Matthew Sonnenfeld] "For playback, the software/hardware upscales it to 1920x1080 so that it can be intercut with other HD footage and so that it can play on standard hardware correct? "

The software, or if you have a capture card, the hardware, makes the anamorphic footage full screen so that you can see it properly. It need not be mixed with other formats...just editing it alone the software, or hardware, will do this. If you exported the footage as self contained Qts, or open the raw footage in QT, often it will appear squeezed.

[Matthew Sonnenfeld] "Obviously since DVCPRO HD has been industry standard for so long, there must be some sort of logic behind how it works with everything else and how it can be used properly, I feel like I may just be missing the mark on how. "

I am unsure what you mean by this. How it works with everything? What everything? How the software deals with anamorphic? That has been around for a while, yes. DVCPRO HD was one of the first formats to employ that compression. But HDV, XDCAM and AVCHD all shoot anamorphic.

[Matthew Sonnenfeld] "Could you help me understand this as well? As a Final Cut editor too, I'm trying to understand my workflows as best I can. "

There is no real need to know the deep inner working of this stuff. Just know that DVCPRO HD is anamorphic (squeezed), and that the software scales it properly so that you can view it and edit it properly. Put the rest of your mental awareness on making the story work.



Shane



GETTING ORGANIZED WITH FINAL CUT PRO DVD...don't miss it.
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Matthew Sonnenfeld
Re: med quality vs most quality by 170 and 200
on Jan 25, 2010 at 5:25:20 am

Thanks for all of your help Shane! Thats answers everything.

Panasonic HPX170 P
Unibody Macbook Pro 15 inch, 2.8 Ghz, 4GB RAM
Final Cut Pro Studio 2
Avid Media Composer
The College of WIlliam and Mary


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2019 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]