10 bit Uncompressed a Bit Overrated for Super-8.

[Alessandro Machi]

10 bit does not add up for me.

 

DV video requires 1 gig per 4 minutes of video. 10 bit uncompressed requires 1 gig for EVERY 36 seconds, almost 8 times the memory requirement. 8 bit requires around 1 gig every 45 seconds.

 

My complaint is, why not something somewhere in the middle? Why does the next step up from DV have to require 6 times or 8 times the memory?

 

Clearly, just doubling or tripling the memory would probably provide a world of difference without forcing one to buy a lot of additional memory. Even if memory is cheap, it's the idea of being forced to use more memory than is needed that bugs me. Efficient use of memory just helps keep a computer from bogging down or the drives from crashing as often.

 

Is there any compromise transfer system available between DV versus 8 or 10 bit?

 

For instance, what about 10 bit compressed? Wouldn't that probably be exactly ideal for a film transfer?

 

Some claim DV is identical or slightly better than Betacam SP, others see Betacam Sp as slightly better, but what doesn't make sense is, if I want to transfer component BetaCam Sp, do I really need to use either DV codecs that probably doesn't do justice to the betacam sp signal, or do I have to use such an overkill option such as 10 bit uncompressed?

[Chayse Irvin ASC, CSC]

10 bit does not add up for me.

 

DV video requires 1 gig per 4 minutes of video. 10 bit uncompressed requires 1 gig for EVERY 36 seconds, almost 8 times the memory requirement. 8 bit requires around 1 gig every 45 seconds.

 

My complaint is, why not something somewhere in the middle? Why does the next step up from DV have to require 6 times or 8 times the memory?

 

Clearly, just doubling or tripling the memory would probably provide a world of difference without forcing one to buy a lot of additional memory. Even if memory is cheap, it's the idea of being forced to use more memory than is needed that bugs me. Efficient use of memory just helps keep a computer from bogging down or the drives from crashing as often.

 

Is there any compromise transfer system available between DV versus 8 or 10 bit?

 

For instance, what about 10 bit compressed? Wouldn't that probably be exactly ideal for a film transfer?

 

Some claim DV is identical or slightly better than Betacam SP, others see Betacam Sp as slightly better, but what doesn't make sense is, if I want to transfer component BetaCam Sp, do I really need to use either DV codecs that probably doesn't do justice to the betacam sp signal, or do I have to use such an overkill option such as 10 bit uncompressed?

 

 

I would imagine you could use a different codec but it probably wont look as good at uncompressed 10-bit. DVCPRO 50?

[SteveParkr]

?

Edited July 30, 2006 by SteveParkr

[David Mullen ASC]

The amount of data is determined by more than just the bit depth.

 

Mini-DV/DVCAM/DVCPRO25 is 8-bit, but it is also 4:1:1 with 5:1 intra-frame compression. 25 Mb/sec.

 

Digital Betacam is usually 8-bit (but can be 10-bit from what I gather), 4:2:2, and only 2.7:1 intra-field compression. 90 Mb/sec I think?

 

You may want to consider DVCPRO50 (8-bit, 4:2:2, 3.3:1 compression), which is essentially double the data of DV. 50 Mb/sec instead of 25 Mb/sec. Near Digital Betacam quality and a more affordable deck.

 

As far as I know, the next level of recording after 8-bit is 10-bit. The jumps are exponential.

 

The main advantage of 10-bit is less banding/contouring artifacts around smooth gradients.

 

If you're asking about the places that put 10-bit uncompressed data on a hard drive, I suppose you may be able to get them to use some method of reducing the data, I don't know. Maybe compression, or going to 8-bit.

[Alessandro Machi]

I could have been clearer.

 

If I'm mastering to betacam sp and I want a higher quality Codec than mini-dv/dv-cam when I transfer from Betacam SP into final cut pro. If I use the kona card, I am suddenly using 8 times the memory for what may be a very nominal gain in quality.

 

I can pretty much guarantee that I'm not gaining 8 times the quality by using the Kona card, I doubt if I'm gaining more than 10-15% the quality over using the DV codec, 8 times the memory for a 15% gain in quality (just a guess on my part) does not add up, it seems very inefficient to me.

 

Is it possible that if one used a DVC Pro-card that had component inputs that the gigs required per minute would be significantly less than the Kona Card requires?

 

Does final cut pro recognize DVC-Pro as a superior input to DV, and if so, are there any DVC-Pro cards that take betacam sp component inputs?

[David Mullen ASC]

I could have been clearer.

 

If I'm mastering to betacam sp and I want a higher quality Codec than mini-dv/dv-cam when I transfer from Betacam SP into final cut pro. If I use the kona card, I am suddenly using 8 times the memory for what may be a very nominal gain in quality.

 

You're still not being very clear. Could you lay out the actual post chain because I don't understand what you mean by "mastering". If you are "mastering" to betacam-SP, wouldn't you be going OUT of FCP to it, not INTO it? Or by "mastering" do you mean the original transfer from film, not the finished edited piece?

 

Do you mean that you are taking film material transferred to betacam-SP, inputting into FCP, and putting the final edit out onto a digital tape format like DVCPRO50? Or are you talking film material transferred to DVCPRO50, let's say, inputting that into FCP, and outputting the final edit to betacam-SP?

 

And the other question is, why use analog tape anywhere in the post chain at all, expect maybe as one of your final output formats, since it would not be dubbed anymore from there.

 

I'd say that DVCPRO50 is the next higher digital codec over Mini-DV/DVCAM/DVCPRO(25).

[Alessandro Machi]

Workflow is.....Super-8 transferred to Betacam SP.

 

I would then like to have the Betacam SP input to Final Cut Pro via a higher codec than mini-dv but a lower memory requirement than the Kona Card requires via it's 8 or 10 bit uncompressed option. The DVC Pro codec might be what I'm looking for but if a DVC Pro input card to final cut pro has no component input itself, than I could not feed it a betacam sp signal.

 

Why Betacam Sp versus a digital format? Film origination material transfered to betacam sp holds up better than camera acquisition betacam sp because film delivers 24 different images per second along with 30 A & B fields that are not motion challenged, whereas betacam sp video acquistion is delivering 60 different fields with dissimilar interlacing fields. Since I like Betacam SP camera acquisition anyway, then film transferred to betacam sp will hold up even better over a few generations.

 

I like that I can directly edit tape to tape when necessary. I can also make real time image adjustments directly from the betacam sp tape via the video deck without need of a computer of any kind. The betacam SP machines are cheaper than DVC pro. Betacam SP offers Time-Code and user bit adjustability so I can number reels from hour 1 to hour 24. I can also adjust audio output if necessary directly from the deck. Betacam SP also has RS-422.

 

My perception is that grainier film transfered to betacam sp looks more realistic and never pixely versus grainy film transferred to Mini-dv or DV-Cam.

 

As for the Kona Card, I'm flummoxed that it requires such a high amount of memory when compared to mini-dv for purposes of importing into final cut pro.

[Stephen Williams]

Digital Betacam is usually 8-bit (but can be 10-bit from what I gather), 4:2:2, and only 2.7:1 intra-field compression. 90 Mb/sec I think?

 

David,

 

Digital Betacam is always 10 bit, however some facilities may run their Flames etc @ 8 Bit!

 

Stephen

[Robert Hughes]

Workflow is.....Super-8 transferred to Betacam SP.

 

My impression is that your workflow image structure is not properly balanced. Generally, in order to retain the most image quality in a workflow you want your transfers to go from the highest quality to lesser quality image formats. But you're intentionally placing BetaSP (with 340 lines horizontal resolution) earlier in the workflow than the higher resolution digital formats. Everything downstream from the BetaSP transfer will bear the BSP stamp; it will be bandwidth limited to whatever the BSP deck provides. Essentially, you're using the BSP deck as a low-pass resolution filter. Yes, the graininess will be less, because it will be smudged out in the BSP stage.

 

But why concern yourself with a higher resolution computer capture downstream if you bandwidth limited the image in the previous step? What you're proposing is similar to using a softening filter on the lens, then running the image through an electronic sharpening filter to compensate for loss at the first stage. That may be an interesting effect, but otherwise it's not an appropriate workflow for keeping the highest fidelity video image & signal.

Edited July 30, 2006 by Robert Hughes

[Alessandro Machi]

My impression is that your workflow image structure is not properly balanced. Generally, in order to retain the most image quality in a workflow you want your transfers to go from the highest quality to lesser quality image formats. But you're intentionally placing BetaSP (with 340 lines horizontal resolution) earlier in the workflow than the higher resolution digital formats. Everything downstream from the BetaSP transfer will bear the BSP stamp; it will be bandwidth limited to whatever the BSP deck provides. Essentially, you're using the BSP deck as a low-pass resolution filter. Yes, the graininess will be less, because it will be smudged out in the BSP stage.

 

But why concern yourself with a higher resolution computer capture downstream if you bandwidth limited the image in the previous step? What you're proposing is similar to using a softening filter on the lens, then running the image through an electronic sharpening filter to compensate for loss at the first stage. That may be an interesting effect, but otherwise it's not an appropriate workflow for keeping the highest fidelity video image & signal.

 

Because BetaCam Sp is not less quality than DV, thats why. This whole idea that any noise is bad news is a load of crap. Nominal amounts of Noise adds dimension and depth to the picture IF it's a very minor portion of the image. DV is 4:1:1 sampling with 5-1 compressiom can be called noiseless if you want, but that doesn't make it better.

[David W Scott]

Because BetaCam Sp is not less quality than DV, thats why. This whole idea that any noise is bad news is a load of crap. Nominal amounts of Noise adds dimension and depth to the picture IF it's a very minor portion of the image. DV is 4:1:1 sampling with 5-1 compressiom can be called noiseless if you want, but that doesn't make it better.

 

 

You can argue about the quality of BCSP vs DV25 all day if you like... they both produce "pretty good" images. They are both lower quality than the formats or codecs you plan to use further down the chain. Why put your footage on BCSP or DV25 to start with, if you plan on bumping up the resolution later?

 

There seem to be two conflicting thoughts here:

 

1) Using BCSP or DV is convenient, tape based and relatively cheap. If these concerns outweigh final output quality, then you are simply seeking a way to capture and edit BCSP while preserving as much quality as possible. But preferably not at the huge requirements of Uncompressed 10-bit.

 

OR

 

2) You are seeking the best quality possible, regardless of tape format. You are favouring BCSP because you perceive it as higher quality than DV25. But if quality alone is what you are seeking, then using BCSP or DV25 as your telecine master is self-defeating. You are willing to use better quality formats later in post, so why not use them for telecine recording?

 

 

If thought #1 is closer to your intention, here is my suggestion:

- Get as good an analog-to-digital video capture card as you can. This might be inside a system (like a used AVID or Media 100) or it might be an add-on card (like a DPS/Leitch card.) You want something with component inputs, has a codec that is supported by your editing software, and will have adjustable compression settings. This way you can capture 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 SD video anywhere between 5:1 compression and 1:1 (uncompressed), adjusting it to get a data rate, file size, and quality that you like.

 

If thought #2 is more accurate, then here are two other suggestions:

- Have the telecine recorded to DVCPRO50 (which is a 4:2:2 DV codec, compressing at 3.3:1). DVCPRO50 is supported in Final Cut Pro, and I believe can be input directly by firewire. No special card required. You will need to own or rent a DVCPRO50 deck.

- Have the telecine recorded directly to harddrive, using a good-quality codec that is supported by BOTH the transfer house and your non-linear software. That really means something built in to Final Cut Pro. If file size is your concern, have it recorded in 8-bit Uncompressed instead of 10-Bit. The real advantage (beyond quality) is that you don't have to own or rent any deck or special hardware. This will work with a fast PowerBook and off-the-shelf Lacie FW800 drives.

[Alessandro Machi]

1) Using BCSP or DV is convenient, tape based and relatively cheap. If these concerns outweigh final output quality, then you are simply seeking a way to capture and edit BCSP while preserving as much quality as possible. But preferably not at the huge requirements of Uncompressed 10-bit.

 

OR

 

2) You are seeking the best quality possible, regardless of tape format. You are favouring BCSP because you perceive it as higher quality than DV25. But if quality alone is what you are seeking, then using BCSP or DV25 as your telecine master is self-defeating. You are willing to use better quality formats later in post, so why not use them for telecine recording?

 

Betacam SP probably captures all the quality that Super-8 has to offer. Reason one is exactly the issue I am concerned about. The Kona card offers 8 bit in addition to 10 but but it's still only approximately 20% less than 10 bit, yet quite a bit more more memory than the firewire input. It's unnecessary overkill, otherwise fire wire is a really awful codec, which I don't think it is.

 

In other words, either the dv codec is awful, or the Kona card 8 bit uses way too much memory for betacam sp by comparison, it's one or the other, unless there are specs that are lower in terms of memory that I am not aware of as it relates to the Kona card and 8 bit and 10 bit compression.

[Robert Hughes]

Well, it sounds like you decided before you even signed on. So why did you ask for responses, then call them a load of crap? Seems pretentious and self-defeating to me.

[Alessandro Machi]

Well, it sounds like you decided before you even signed on. So why did you ask for responses, then call them a load of crap? Seems pretentious and self-defeating to me.

 

Maybe you should reacquaint yourself with the first post in this topic before making such an inaccurate accusation towards me. Just reread the first post in this topic and you'll see that your statement is not substantiated in the least.

 

I clearly stated in that first post that I was unhappy with what my research was showing in regards to a compromise bit rate between a DV codec and 8 or 10 bit umcompressed. I then asked what alternatives exist.

 

DVC-Pro may be a logical compromise, but the lack of decks as compared to Betacam SP makes doesn't make that viable a choice.

[Chris Graham]

10-bit direct to hard drive = convenience and those willing to pay. I don't own any sort of decks to layoff to anyways. If it's as good as DV that's enough more.

[Chris Keth]

Nominal amounts of Noise adds dimension and depth to the picture IF it's a very minor portion of the image.

 

 

No, it doesn't. It adds noise. My eyes don't see a noiseless world and let me tell you: there's quite a bit of depth and dimension out there. ;)

[Alessandro Machi]

No, it doesn't. It adds noise. My eyes don't see a noiseless world and let me tell you: there's quite a bit of depth and dimension out there. ;)

 

Your phrase "My eyes don't see a noiseless world and let me tell you: there's quite a bit of depth and dimension out there" seems to imply you agree with my statement.

[Chris Keth]

Your phrase "My eyes don't see a noiseless world and let me tell you: there's quite a bit of depth and dimension out there" seems to imply you agree with my statement.

 

 

You know what I mean...that'll teach me for posting at 2:30 am :P

[David W Scott]

Reason one is exactly the issue I am concerned about. The Kona card offers 8 bit in addition to 10 but but it's still only approximately 20% less than 10 bit, yet quite a bit more more memory than the firewire input. It's unnecessary overkill, otherwise fire wire is a really awful codec, which I don't think it is.

 

In other words, either the dv codec is awful, or the Kona card 8 bit uses way too much memory for betacam sp by comparison, it's one or the other, unless there are specs that are lower in terms of memory that I am not aware of as it relates to the Kona card and 8 bit and 10 bit compression.

 

The DV codec isn't awful -- it's actually delivers a pretty good image at a very low data-rate. Remember, the DV codec was defined 10 years ago (!!!) to allow full-resolution SD recording to a 6.5mm tape (!!!) and then for it to be ingested and processed by the average computer of 1998 (!!!) DV really was a miracle, because it offloaded the analog-to-digital conversion duties to the camcorder, and negated the need for good quality A-to-D capture cards.

 

If you want to continue using BCSP, you are moving the responsibility for A-to-D back to the computer. There are still lots of choices to do that:

 

For about $5000:

VelocityQ boardset and NLE software

 

For about $1000:

AJA Kona LS

 

For about $600:

BlackMagic Decklink SP

 

Simply use adjustable compression with one of these cards -- usually M-JPEG or JPEG. The quality of 4:2:2 JPEG at 3MB/s is really good. I used to edit with a DPS Perception card, offlining at 1MB/s, onlining at 7MB/s. At 7MB/s the 4:2:2 M-JPEG footage looked as good as Digital Betacam.

 

Just because a card comes with uncompressed (the holy grail of non-linear editing in the 90's) doesn't mean that you have to use it uncompressed.

 

Here's an excerpt from the Kona LS manual about the choices available for it:

 

PhotoJPEG

Data rate: approximately 1-3 MB/second?supported by internal system drive

Quality: Very Good

The Apple PhotoJPEG codec offers an excellent compressed media choice for

on-line quality at low data rates. PhotoJPEG can use the full-raster at 4:2:2

sampling. Final Cut Pro allows you to adjust quality using a PhotoJPEG control

panel. KONA LS allows for PhotoJPEG monitoring and/or output in SD.

KONA LS can capture from almost any input, directly to PhotoJPEG media.

 

DV (DV25)

Data rate: 3.13 MB/second (megabyte/second)?supported by internal system

drive

Quality: Good

In this workflow, DV is usually input to a Power Mac running Final Cut Pro

through its FireWire port. DV offers good quality, but it has lower Chroma

resolution when compared to DV50, JPEG, or uncompressed. You can use

KONA LS to playback DV projects to uncompressed?in real time?for

monitoring and/or output. Alternatively, KONA LS can capture uncompressed

from any input, directly to DV clips.

 

DV50

Data rate: 6.26 MB/second?supported by internal system drive

Quality: Very Good

Like DV25, Final Cut Pro also supports the Panasonic DV50 standard

definition codec. DV50 is a 4:2:2 compressed format and therefore has higher

chroma resolution when compared to DV25. Also like DV25, you can use

KONA LS to playback DV50 projects to uncompressed?in real time?for

monitoring and/or output. KONA LS can capture uncompressed from any

input, directly to DV50 clips.

 

Uncompressed 8-bit

Data rate: 21 MB/second ? requires SCSI, Fibre Channel, or ATA drive array

Quality: Excellent

Uncompressed media is KONA LS?s native storage format, offering the highest

quality available. Capturing in uncompressed results in no compression

artifacts, and video is sampled over the full raster at a 4:2:2 rate. Using

uncompressed maintains a higher quality in your project from capture all the

way through effects rendering. Final Cut Pro supports realtime effects with

uncompressed media using RT Extreme. KONA LS supports capture of

uncompressed through any of its inputs, and projects are output to all of its

outputs simultaneously.

 

Uncompressed 10-bit

Data rate: 28 MB/second ? requires SCSI, Fibre Channel or ATA drive array

Quality: Excellent, very high quality

Offering all the benefits noted previously for 8-bit uncompressed, 10-bit

additionally offers the very highest quality available. With 10-bit media and Final

Cut Pro?s 32 bit Floating Point YUV effects rendering, video quality is second to

none?at any price.

 

Source

[Chris Graham]

Imagine if there was 128-bit transfer for S8 with a hard drive being the size of a building. That would be awesome! :o

[Alessandro Machi]

The DV codec isn't awful -- it's actually delivers a pretty good image at a very low data-rate.

 

I earlier said that Betacam Sp transferred at the mini DV codec range was not an option that I wanted to pursue, but that is a different point than the one you are making above. I agree with you that the DV codec, designed 10 years ago, was a very good and efficient codec for the amount of memory it uses, I just don't see it as an optimal choice for material that originates on Betacam SP or for film that has been transferred to betacam sp. The mini-dv codec is certainly a good codec for betacam sp, quite acceptable perhaps, but not optimal in my opinion.

 

For about $5000:

VelocityQ boardset and NLE software

 

For about $1000:

AJA Kona LS

 

For about $600:

BlackMagic Decklink SP

 

Simply use adjustable compression with one of these cards -- usually M-JPEG or JPEG. The quality of 4:2:2 JPEG at 3MB/s is really good. I used to edit with a DPS Perception card, offlining at 1MB/s, onlining at 7MB/s. At 7MB/s the 4:2:2 M-JPEG footage looked as good as Digital Betacam.

 

Just because a card comes with uncompressed (the holy grail of non-linear editing in the 90's) doesn't mean that you have to use it uncompressed.

 

Here's an excerpt from the Kona LS manual about the choices available for it:

 

PhotoJPEG

Data rate: approximately 1-3 MB/second?supported by internal system drive

Quality: Very Good

The Apple PhotoJPEG codec offers an excellent compressed media choice for

on-line quality at low data rates. PhotoJPEG can use the full-raster at 4:2:2

sampling. Final Cut Pro allows you to adjust quality using a PhotoJPEG control

panel. KONA LS allows for PhotoJPEG monitoring and/or output in SD.

KONA LS can capture from almost any input, directly to PhotoJPEG media.

 

DV (DV25)

Data rate: 3.13 MB/second (megabyte/second)?supported by internal system

drive

Quality: Good

In this workflow, DV is usually input to a Power Mac running Final Cut Pro

through its FireWire port. DV offers good quality, but it has lower Chroma

resolution when compared to DV50, JPEG, or uncompressed. You can use

KONA LS to playback DV projects to uncompressed?in real time?for

monitoring and/or output. Alternatively, KONA LS can capture uncompressed

from any input, directly to DV clips.

 

DV50

Data rate: 6.26 MB/second?supported by internal system drive

Quality: Very Good

Like DV25, Final Cut Pro also supports the Panasonic DV50 standard

definition codec. DV50 is a 4:2:2 compressed format and therefore has higher

chroma resolution when compared to DV25. Also like DV25, you can use

KONA LS to playback DV50 projects to uncompressed?in real time?for

monitoring and/or output. KONA LS can capture uncompressed from any

input, directly to DV50 clips.

 

Uncompressed 8-bit

Data rate: 21 MB/second ? requires SCSI, Fibre Channel, or ATA drive array

Quality: Excellent

Uncompressed media is KONA LS?s native storage format, offering the highest

quality available. Capturing in uncompressed results in no compression

artifacts, and video is sampled over the full raster at a 4:2:2 rate. Using

uncompressed maintains a higher quality in your project from capture all the

way through effects rendering. Final Cut Pro supports realtime effects with

uncompressed media using RT Extreme. KONA LS supports capture of

uncompressed through any of its inputs, and projects are output to all of its

outputs simultaneously.

 

Uncompressed 10-bit

Data rate: 28 MB/second ? requires SCSI, Fibre Channel or ATA drive array

Quality: Excellent, very high quality

Offering all the benefits noted previously for 8-bit uncompressed, 10-bit

additionally offers the very highest quality available. With 10-bit media and Final

Cut Pro?s 32 bit Floating Point YUV effects rendering, video quality is second to

none?at any price.

 

Source

 

So which card has adjustable compression in the 6-12 MB/second range and also has betacam sp component inputs.?

 

The Kona Card seems to have some choices, but if I use the DVC-pro 50 quality setting of 6 mb/second will the component betacam sp inputs also work, or will I hve to use a YC or firewire transcoder?

[David W Scott]

I earlier said that Betacam Sp transferred at the mini DV codec range was not an option that I wanted to pursue, but that is a different point than the one you are making above. I agree with you that the DV codec, designed 10 years ago, was a very good and efficient codec for the amount of memory it uses, I just don't see it as an optimal choice for material that originates on Betacam SP or for film that has been transferred to betacam sp. The mini-dv codec is certainly a good codec for betacam sp, quite acceptable perhaps, but not optimal in my opinion.

So which card has adjustable compression in the 6-12 MB/second range and also has betacam sp component inputs.?

 

The Kona Card seems to have some choices, but if I use the DVC-pro 50 quality setting of 6 mb/second will the component betacam sp inputs also work, or will I hve to use a YC or firewire transcoder?

 

All three cards I listed have analog Component I/O and will record M-JPEG or JPEG.

 

The Leitch VelocityQ will definitely work at those data rates. It's the real-time, uncompressed-capable inheritor of the DPS Perception. You could probably find a used Perception for $100-$200 these days, and it has component I/O, 4:2:2 and handles around 10MB/s. Unfortunately you need compatible dedicated SCSI drives.

 

I know the Kona JPEG solution is limited to 3MB/s, but that can look pretty good -- it would be worth looking at sample footage at a dealers.

 

DVCPRO50 usually comes in over the firewire, but the Kona manual says these magic words "KONA LS can capture uncompressed from any input, directly to DV50 clips." Sounds like you can roll-your-own DV50 clips, no deck required.

Edited August 2, 2006 by David W Scott

[Alessandro Machi]

All three cards I listed have analog Component I/O and will record M-JPEG or JPEG.

 

The Leitch VelocityQ will definitely work at those data rates. It's the real-time, uncompressed-capable inheritor of the DPS Perception. You could probably find a used Perception for $100-$200 these days, and it has component I/O, 4:2:2 and handles around 10MB/s. Unfortunately you need compatible dedicated SCSI drives.

 

I know the Kona JPEG solution is limited to 3MB/s, but that can look pretty good -- it would be worth looking at sample footage at a dealers.

 

DVCPRO50 usually comes in over the firewire, but the Kona manual says these magic words "KONA LS can capture uncompressed from any input, directly to DV50 clips." Sounds like you can roll-your-own DV50 clips, no deck required.

 

Good news. Someone who is working with the Kona Card was able go into final cut pro with a betacam sp component 8 bit compressed to DVC-PRO 50 codec and it seems to hit that sweet spot I wanted in terms of double the memory versus using a mini-dv codec but signifcantly less memory than going 8 or 10 bit uncompressed.

 

It's too early to tell for sure but the above combination is probably a very efficient method for doing higher quality than mini-dv codecs while not using a ton more memory. So to review, if I have a super-8 project in the future that will be edited via final cut pro, my opinion at this point in time is that a super-8 to betacam sp film to tape rank transfer followed by an 8 bit compressed to DVC-Pro50 codec would be better than simply going mini-dv to firewire in, especially if one were planning on doing a DI (digital intermediate) later on. However, that doesn't mean that mini-dv is no good, I'm not saying that at all.

 

I am assuming that the final cut pro color correction tools will have more muscle because there is more bits to work with if the imported signal uses a DVC-Pro 50 codec. Since the mini-dv signal is already compressed, using the DVC-pro codec probably doesn't help it all.

 

Betacam SP in not necessarily out of anyone's price range as player only video decks appear on ebay for under $2,000 dollars, although beware, they may need maintenance and upkeep.

[David W Scott]

So to review, if I have a super-8 project in the future that will be edited via final cut pro, my opinion at this point in time is that a super-8 to betacam sp film to tape rank transfer followed by an 8 bit compressed to DVC-Pro50 codec would be better than simply going mini-dv to firewire in, especially if one were planning on doing a DI (digital intermediate) later on. However, that doesn't mean that mini-dv is no good, I'm not saying that at all.

 

I am assuming that the final cut pro color correction tools will have more muscle because there is more bits to work with if the imported signal uses a DVC-Pro 50 codec. Since the mini-dv signal is already compressed, using the DVC-pro codec probably doesn't help it all.

 

I think you could go one step better... in preserving as much spatial and colour resolution as possible. It's almost the same as your workflow, but by changing the order of how things happen, you could really get the best quality possible out of the DVCPRO50 codec.

 

1. Telecine direct-to-disk. Specify that you want it in the DVCPRO50 codec, not 8 or 10-bit uncompressed. This gives you the full analog spatial and colour resolution that the Rank or Spirit is capable of, compressed only once by the DVCPRO50 codec. You bypass BetacamSP for the moment.

 

2. Copy the footage from the portable drive to your Final Cut Pro workstation.

 

3. If you want analog BetacamSP backups of your telecine, simply make your own. Playback the DVCPRO50 footage from Final Cut and record like-new telecine masters for backup.

 

4. Edit the DVCPRO50 footage, knowing that you skipped the lower-res step of recording and playing back BetacamSP. (But if something goes wrong at any point, you have those BCSP masters that you recorded as a backup.)

 

5. Once you've finished editing, you can make a BetacamSP master of your finished program. If you really like the slightly softer analog look of BCSP, this is the stage at which you can get that.

 

6. If you need a higher-resolution master, your finished DVCPRO50 Quicktime can be taken to a post facility on a portable hard drive.

 

 

Here's your proposed workflow:

 

- TELECINE: analog component - full resolution output

- RECORDED TO Betacam SP: analog component - 340 lines horizontal resolution

- PLAYBACK FROM Betacam SP: analog component - 340 lines

- RECORDED TO Kona LS: analog component in - A/D converted and compressed to DV50 codec - (720x480 @ 4:2:2 @ 50Mb/s)

- EDITED with Kona LS and Final Cut Pro: lossless

- EDITED PROGRAM PLAYBACK FROM Kona LS: lossless

- MASTER RECORDED TO: Betacam SP: analog component - 340 lines

 

Here is my proposed workflow:

 

- TELECINE: analog component - full resolution output

- RECORDED TO Kona LS: analog component in - A/D converted and compressed to DV50 codec - (720x480 @ 4:2:2 @ 50Mb/s)

- EDITED with Kona LS and Final Cut Pro: lossless

- EDITED PROGRAM PLAYBACK FROM Kona LS: lossless

- MASTER RECORDED TO: Betacam SP: analog component - 340 lines

OR

DVCPRO50 (720x480 @ 4:2:2 @ 50Mb/s)

OR

DigiBeta (720x480 @ 4:2:2 @ 90Mb/s)

 

This workflow gives you the peace of mind of having those BCSP backup tapes, while avoiding putting your footage through the wringer of BCSP recording and playback. If you want to master your finished program to a higher-resolution format (DVCPRO50 or DigiBeta), you can rent a deck for a day, or send your edited program on hard drive to a post facility.

 

Regarding color correction and DI work, yes the DV50 signal has twice the colour resolution of DV25 (MiniDV and DVCPRO25). You will be able to pull much cleaner corrections. Betacam SP, however, is no better than DV25 for color correction or keying work. (For more detail on how how Betacam SP compares to a variety of other formats, see the excellent site run by Adam Wilt Adam Wilt's Digital Video FAQ)

[Stephen Williams]

Betacam SP, however, is no better than DV25 for color correction or keying work.

 

Hi,

 

A brand new BCSP full broadcast machine is IMHO far better for keying than DV25. If the machine is an industrial one or out of spec you could well be right.

 

Stephen