Michael Brown Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 Two questions in a row - new here, so don't know if this is proper or not. Anyways, we plan on editing an HD production on Final Cut Pro and would like some insight. On a previous production we shot with HD Cam tapes and downconverted them to DV (time code lock) and then used final cut pro to do the offline. From this we took an EDL to our online and they finished it up. We are going to invest in a G5 for this upcoming production and are exploring how to do the editing. We'll have an HD Deck, so that problem is solved. The question is whether to figure out a way to do this with the Mac, directly off the HD tapes, or again downconvert to DV. The idea of doing off the HD means that we'll spend less time and money in the online. At a deeper look, Final Cut Pro HD, is that really HD? It only seems compatible with DVC Pro HD. Our impression is that to edit off of HD Cam with Final Cut Pro means a 5,000 dollar PCI card and then tons of storage space, even with compression, and that the compatibility with FCP HD is less than seemless. Any ideas as to which will be the better course of action? Thanks, David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenolian Bell Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 Well you will need at lot of storage either way. FCP HD does only work natively with DVC-Pro HD. Here is a card you can look at http://www.blackmagic-design.com/site/decklinkhdpro.htm Black magic software is known to make it easier to deal with Quicktime and HDCAM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Visiano Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 http://www.panasonic.com/business/provideo/nab_access_hd.asp What do you guys think of this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Rosato Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 This topic caught my eye because we're looking to do something similar with our upcoming project. The link in that last post makes it seem like we'd be stupid not to shoot with that camera, but what is the image quality like vs. the Sony 900? For an eventual 35mm print, will the Panasonic camera give us enough image quality, or would it be worth, what it seems would be quite a bit of extra money in post, to shoot with the Sony? This may have all been covered before, if so, sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted September 8, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted September 8, 2004 Hi, > what is the image quality like vs. the Sony 900 It is lower resolution and the compression is quite harsh at 24p, although the colour subsampling is finer. I have seen Varicam footage digitally projected and it didn't look very good, although I have a feeling that's more to do with the awful cinematography in the particular piece than the camera. It was full of vertical flare through hilights and other fairly major issues. I'm pretty sure the camera is capable of better than this, it's just that it's very difficult to get hold of filmed-out varicam material to look at. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Keith Mottram Posted September 8, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted September 8, 2004 all these questions really come down to budget. To offline at 1080p would be crazy unless you had already done a pretty accurate paper edit, otherwise your storage situation would be a complete nightmare. You need about 2.5 tb for a feature online (allowing for a certain amount of effects, titles, tests etc), and so I'd recomend doing an offline first - perhaps by downconverting straight out of a Sony HJ-3, they are cheap to hire (although I have not tried this personally). The next thing to consider is the card both the Blackmagic and Kona cards are pretty good, but if you are going to a film out and can afford it, I'd recomend a dual link card (such as the BM HD-Pro aprox $2500- a single link which will allow HDCAM mastering will be around $1200) this will allow you to finish at 4:4:4 10 bit which is significantly better for filmout and will give you a solid archive master. Personally I think that however much post you do the Panasonic HD route is far too compressed for a film out, unless you are going for a DV look. Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Allen Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 The question is whether to figure out a way to do this with the Mac, directly off the HD tapes, or again downconvert to DV. The idea of doing off the HD means that we'll spend less time and money in the online. If you're using an HD capture card and wanting first to do an offline edit, the procedure is to capture in proxy mode usually half rez, half size jpg QT movies and use that for your offline. When you have found footage you need to effect, you simply load that footage because the time code will be perfect and you make your effect, put that down to tape (if you plan on onlining elsewhere) and then bring it back in proxied. When you're done, your edl should be perfect, since you have the deck, you can do the online at your own facility - it's a simple matter of recapturing all the footage in your project - the media manager tool handles this quite well. the color correction tools are quite strong on the FCP, but the render files these will create could end up doubling the amount of storage data you need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted September 9, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted September 9, 2004 Hi, Onlining on the same system you offlined on does cut out a whole lot of possibilities for error, if you have the ability to do it. You could also spit out a hard disk full of images and take it to some correction place, which would need an EDL to determine the scene breaks, but it would be immediately obvious if it was wrong then. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Michael Nash Posted September 10, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted September 10, 2004 For an eventual 35mm print, will the Panasonic camera give us enough image quality, or would it be worth, what it seems would be quite a bit of extra money in post, to shoot with the Sony? The Sony camera will look more like a soft-ish 35mm when blown up, and the Varicam will look more like Super 16. That's a really rough approximation, but it should give you an idea. You have to weigh the costs and workflow issues of HDCAM vs. DVCPRO-HD and the quality on screen. Check out the DVD of Dopamine for an idea of what the Varicam looks like in a feature context. Obviously you're looking at DVD and not 35mm projection, and there was lots of color correction, but it should give you an idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Steelberg ASC Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 I'd recomend a dual link card (such as the BM HD-Pro aprox $2500- a single link which will allow HDCAM mastering will be around $1200) this will allow you to finish at 4:4:4 10 bit which is significantly better for filmout and will give you a solid archive master. Not true. You're confusing him. If they bring in HDCam, which is 4:2:2, they will output the same. Having a 4:4:4 dual link card won't change that. You can't export more than you bring in. The BM HD Pro card will only benefit you using an HDCam SR format which IS 4:4:4. He COULD lay back out to SR, but it won't be any better quality. He has no need for a dual link card. Either way, you'd need very big, very fast, very expensive storage. If you're doing this for a project, edit in DV and online somewhere else. Don't get into all of this equipment investment unless you are a post production business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted September 10, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted September 10, 2004 Hi, About the cheapest possible storage solution for this kind of thing would be a 3ware 9000 series serial ATA RAID board. You could do your three terabytes for under US$2500, although you'd really ideally want a PCI-X board to run it in. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenolian Bell Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 HDCAM is actually 3:1:1 a long way from 4:4:4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Steelberg ASC Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 HDCAM is actually 3:1:1 a long way from 4:4:4 Who told you that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Christopher Bell Posted September 12, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted September 12, 2004 HDCAM is 3:1:1 , HDCAM SR is 4:4:4 Chris Bell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenolian Bell Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 "So, instead of making a personal controlled decision of how to compromise the full range of a picture a set of chips will alter the color response, matrix, sharpen your picture, detail, and then chuck a whole load of it away with compression or just chopping some of it away. I'm sure that the F900 actually produces a great picture but they then throw away 25% of the luminance picture 75% of the color picture and then compress what's left 4 times!" Which ends up being 3:1:1 A quote from Geoff Boyle after his first experiences with the F900. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted September 12, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted September 12, 2004 Hi, Having been able to work quite closely with some F900 material (as a DPX sequence on Baselight) recently I can substantiate the concerns about it, but really, people do seem to criticise it an awful lot. I think it's worth reconsidering the situation for a moment: compared to the television pictures we're generally used to seeing, the output from the F900 is superb, and it does hold up reasonably well on the big screen as well. It's far from awful. Let's not turn this into an unqualified slag-fest. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenolian Bell Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 I wasn't trying to deride HDCAM, just matter of factly stating that it is 3:1:1. To add some context to the quote from Geoff, this was from a few years back. This statement was from a time when Sony's literature was saying HDCAM was just like shooting 35mm. So Geoff's reaction was, its not like 35mm and this is why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Keith Mottram Posted September 13, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted September 13, 2004 "Not true. You're confusing him. If they bring in HDCam, which is 4:2:2, they will output the same. Having a 4:4:4 dual link card won't change that. You can't export more than you bring in. The BM HD Pro card will only benefit you using an HDCam SR format which IS 4:4:4. He COULD lay back out to SR, but it won't be any better quality. He has no need for a dual link card" Eric, I have to disagree on this as you will end up recompresssing compressed rushes if you output to HDCAM. Also if you were to alter the image in anyway - colours, blur effects, transitions, titles you would certainly be wise to hold onto your new 10bit version in the highest possible master. Your argument would be the equivilent of a tv show shot on DVCAM then posted and outputted back to DVCAM for TX- that would be idiotic. The same applies here. Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brennan Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 " I'm sure that the F900 actually produces a great picture but they then throw away 25% of the luminance picture 75% of the color picture and then compress what's left 4 times!"" In digital domain, it is not what is throw any but what actually remains and how it is reconstructed that really matters. If you have seen a side by side comparison of HDCAM and 4:2:2 you'll see how misleading the above statement is. Shock horror it is very hard to tell the difference between 3:1:1 and 4:2:2 even though 75% of the colour is thrown away!!!! By the way, the neg to interpos to print process "throws away" a lot of information too!! The results are judged on what remains. Mike brennan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now