FORUMS: list search recent posts

Transcode DV to 422 for editing. Best way?

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro Legacy

<< PREVIOUS   •   FAQ   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Tim Green
Transcode DV to 422 for editing. Best way?
on Oct 1, 2010 at 2:07:17 am

I should know this. Please forgive me if it's been covered before but I couldn't find a straight answer even though a Google yielded the same question many times:

I still shoot a lot of DV. In the past, when I wanted to work in 422 (so graphics would look better), I would just put the DV footage on a 422 timeline and go from there.

But now I would like to transcode the footage before I start editing. What's the best way to do it? Here's what I've tried:

- Compressor: deinterlacing looks good but the image gets very dark. Seems like a problem that's been around for a while.

- Squeeze: deinterlacing looks awful, but image gamma is fine. Also, no control over pixel aspect ratio.

- MPEG Streamclip: bad deinterlacing and dark.

What's the best way to do this? I would be very appreciative of a suggested workflow.

Thanks.

Tim


Return to posts index

Tim Green
Re: Transcode DV to 422 for editing. Best way?
on Oct 1, 2010 at 4:19:27 am

I may have figured it out myself. In Compressor, under the Filters button, Color tab: I set Output Color Space to "Preserve Source."

That seems to have fixed the Gamma problem, but the deinterlacing doesn't look as good as in the raw DV file, at least when played back in QuickTime Player (7 or X). I'm using "Better (Motion Adaptive)" in the deinterlacing option, because "Best" takes so long to render, and even then it doesn't look as smooth as the DV footage.

I guess I expect the 422 to look as good as (but not better) than the source DV footage. Is that unreasonable?

Any comments about the best workflow for this would be appreciated.

Tim


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Transcode DV to 422 for editing. Best way?
on Oct 1, 2010 at 4:51:51 am

Edit in a DV50 sequence.

What is your final output going to be to? Tape? Web? What?

Shane



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


Return to posts index


Tim Green
Re: Transcode DV to 422 for editing. Best way?
on Oct 1, 2010 at 5:00:32 am

Final output in this case is web, flv files from Squeeze. Sometimes I output to web, mp4 (H.264) files via Squeeze and post with Sorenson 360. Other times the output is local playback from a PC, mov (H.264) files via Squeeze.

Isn't DV50 a codec used by high-end cameras? I use an XH-A1 and I usually shoot in DV. Most of my work is talking heads for federal government intranet and web sites, so I haven't shot HDV too much.

Anyway, I do a lot of text animations, lower thirds, etc., and they always look better when I edit and export from a 422 sequence, and then go through Squeeze for final output. That works fine for me, but I thought I would transcode ahead of time for this project to save some rendering time.

Thanks.

Tim


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Transcode DV to 422 for editing. Best way?
on Oct 1, 2010 at 5:33:50 am

DV50 is a higher data rate DV format. If DV was betaSP, then DV50 is DIGIBETA. It's a Panasonic format, but a very good one. It is found in the Easy Setups, right below DV/NTSC and DV/PAL. Make a new sequence, drop the graphics into that...see what you see. Then drop the DV footage into it.

Lower data rate than...what is 422? What codec? ProRes NTSC?

Shane



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


Return to posts index

Tim Green
Re: Transcode DV to 422 for editing. Best way?
on Oct 1, 2010 at 5:42:10 am

Interesting... I'll try that. I guess I just always assumed that you had to work in the codec that you captured in, except for 422. Which as I understand it, Apple created to replace AIC as an editing and capture codec.

And yes, by 422 I mean ProRes 422 (NTSC). Sorry for the confusion.

I was reading about DV50 on other threads here since you posted that. It does seem like a good way to go.

I've always shot and edited in DV or HDV, for output to DVDs. But in this new job my output is almost always for web or local playback, so I'm learning more about shooting progressive (30p), deinterlacing, ProRes, using Squeeze for output and posting... stuff like that. It's a whole new world for me, and sometimes confusing.

Thanks for your time.

Tim


Return to posts index


Rafael Amador
Re: Transcode DV to 422 for editing. Best way?
on Oct 1, 2010 at 9:48:52 am

[Tim Green] "Interesting... I'll try that. I guess I just always assumed that you had to work in the codec that you captured in, except for 422."
When you apply filters, Color Correction, etc, is good to render to a better codec.

[Tim Green] "Which as I understand it, Apple created to replace AIC as an editing and capture codec."
This makes no sense.
422 is a pattern to downsample digital video to reduce data.
422 means that half of the color of the picture is discharged. Better than 420/411, where that happens with 75% of the color samples.
There are many 422 codecs long before the crappy AIC came to existence.

There is way to improve your DV footage. The Nattresse Chroma filters helps very much to reduce the blockiness when you use it on DV footage in a 422 or 444 sequence. The footage won't look like DV anymore.
Rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Chris Tompkins
Re: Transcode DV to 422 for editing. Best way?
on Oct 1, 2010 at 5:56:00 pm

I would edit the vid and grfx and all in a dv25 timeline.
When the edit is done. Change sequence settings to DV50 and best in the render tabs. Render. Export ref file. Compress for web/DVD/Etc.

Chris Tompkins
Video Atlanta


Return to posts index

Tim Green
Re: Transcode DV to 422 for editing. Best way?
on Oct 1, 2010 at 6:17:43 pm

I just tried that (Chris's suggestion), and it worked fine, but my graphics show interlacing. My animation has a round logo flying and rotating in large and getting smaller as it settles into place. You can easily see the fields.

In my ProRes 422 version, I ran the video through Compressor and deinterlaced it. Then I changed the timeline to ProRes with Field Dominance set to "None." This gave me smooth video and animation, although as I noted above, the video doesn't look quite as smooth as it did when it was DV. Barely perceptible difference though, and perfectly acceptable.

In Chris's suggestion above, I can't change the Field Dominance to "None" cuz then the video looks bad. So I'm stuck with visible fields on the animation. BTW, the animation was made from a Photoshop file and assembled in a separate ProRes 422 timeline.

Am I missing something? I'm about to finish this project using my ProRes/Deinterlacing method, and it looks fine, but I'm just wondering if there's another way to do this.

Thanks to all of you for your time.

Tim


Return to posts index


Chris Tompkins
Re: Transcode DV to 422 for editing. Best way?
on Oct 2, 2010 at 12:03:55 am

How are you viewing this video?
DV25, was it shot interlaced?

Why not de-interlace the final product after the edit while u compress for web?

Chris Tompkins
Video Atlanta


Return to posts index

Tim Green
Re: Transcode DV to 422 for editing. Best way?
on Oct 2, 2010 at 12:34:18 am

Yes, it was shot interlaced. SD DV with an XH-A1 in 60i mode.

I finished the project today and here's what I did:

- Animation graphics were made in Photoshop and Illustrator. I put them on a ProRes 422 progressive timeline (Field Dominance set to "None")

- Ran the DV footage through Compressor, 422, deinterlace.

- Brought that footage and the animation Sequence into a 422 progressive timeline and exported.

- Ran the whole thing through Squeeze (no deinterlace), and uploaded to 360 as an mp4 (H.264). It looks fine.

Are you saying that I should edit on a ProRes 422 timeline with Bottom Field dominance, export from FCP, then Deinterlace with Squeeze? Wouldn't that interlace the graphics needlessly, only to deinterlace them at the end?

Or are you saying that I should put the graphics on a DV25 timeline? Wouldn't that make them look bad?

I've just been reading about folks transcoding (and deinterlacing) first, and then editing on a ProRes 422 progressive timeline. Seems to make sense when the output will be for web.

Am I thinking wrong about this? Just trying to figure out the best workflow.

Thanks!

Tim

P.S. Just to avoid confusion... the reason I started this thread was cuz Compressor was making ProRes 422 files that were much darker than the source DV files. I guess it was changing the Gamma, which I've seen mentioned a lot. I couldn't figure out how to get it to stop, but then after I started the thread, I figured it out. In Compressor, under the Filters button, Color tab: I set Output Color Space to "Preserve Source," and that looks fine.

But then after seeing the responses about DV50, I started to think my workflow was wrong. Still trying to figure it out, lol.


Return to posts index

Chris Tompkins
Re: Transcode DV to 422 for editing. Best way?
on Oct 3, 2010 at 3:49:23 pm

We all have different ways of working or accomplishing the end result.
It just seems like maybe you compressed twice.

I would not run SD DV footage thru compression to remove interlace to edit and compress again for web.

The grfx you built separate in a pro-res sequence; You could have built them in the dv25 timeline and then render all in dv50 @ the end. This will yield ghood results for all grfx.

Output finished piece "current settings" ref file.
Drop that into your compression software and when u create the web clip, deinterlace there.
FWIW

Chris Tompkins
Video Atlanta


Return to posts index


Rafael Amador
Re: Transcode DV to 422 for editing. Best way?
on Oct 3, 2010 at 4:59:00 pm

[Tim Green] "In my ProRes 422 version, I ran the video through Compressor and deinterlaced it. Then I changed the timeline to ProRes with Field Dominance set to "None." This gave me smooth video and animation, "
Progressive video won't ever look as smooth as interlaced. You have half the number of images per second. Will always look more choppy.


[Tim Green] "- Animation graphics were made in Photoshop and Illustrator. I put them on a ProRes 422 progressive timeline (Field Dominance set to "None")

- Ran the DV footage through Compressor, 422, deinterlace.

- Brought that footage and the animation Sequence into a 422 progressive timeline and exported.

- Ran the whole thing through Squeeze (no deinterlace), and uploaded to 360 as an mp4 (H.264). It looks fine."

The workflow is correct.
You could have done all at once in FC.
Rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Robert Reeves
Re: Transcode DV to 422 for editing. Best way?
on Oct 24, 2010 at 12:56:28 pm

Howdy,

so I have similar issue, however mine have always been just making my DV footage not look blocky in the Reds, Greens(maybe too much saturation) on a HDTV (SD footage just played back on a DVD on a HDTV and it looks bad). So I just got a new computer that can finally handle running ProRes without taking hours. I tried the settings you have and it looks very good. One question I have is what are you settings for compressor, any other tweaks you have to make it look really sharp? I am always trying to make a better product and alway will to listen to others. My final output is 99% DVD to clients, I shot Children's musicals and the colors are tough because lighting I have no control over.

:-)


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]