What should I do?

Zamir Merali · June 6, 2007

Hi.

I'm shooting a 16mm project right now but have not decided what post production workflow I will be taking. I am planning on processing and telecining at Studio Post in Saskatchewan on their c-reality scanner. I have a dvcpro50 deck available to me so at this point I am leaning towards a telecine to that format and then an import into premier pro. However, does anybody see a better option that what I am planning. What kind of computer power will I need to edit dvcpro50 footage? Thankyou.

Zamir Merali

This project will be straight to DVD.

Scott Fritzshall · June 6, 2007

Well, if DVCPro50 is all you've got available, then it's probably your best option. ;) It should be fine for DVD, and it doesn't really require substantial resources to edit.

Patrick Cooper · June 8, 2007

Ive heard that going from Digital Betacam to DVD can cause quality problems. So is DVCPro50 better in this regard?

Robert Houllahan · June 8, 2007

Ive heard that going from Digital Betacam to DVD can cause quality problems. So is DVCPro50 better in this regard?

I do not see how there would be problems with going from D-Beta to dvd it is a almost uncompressed 10 bit video format and provides a very high quality original for the Mpeg compressor to "chew on" and usually it is ingested into an editor over SDi uncompressed. DvcPro50 is a much higher quality format than DV and can be edited easily on a laptop, I do allot of my own stuff in DV50 on a 12" G4 laptop with the internal drive, but it is more compressed than D-beta and is a 8bit video format not 10bit like D-Beta. Both are higher quality SD video formats which would make good DVD originals especially from a high quality source like a DSX.

-Rob-

Patrick Cooper · June 8, 2007

Thanks Robert. I know it might seem strange there being quality problems going from DigiBeta to DVD but there was another thread on this forum which highlighted certain issues with the image using this workflow. I can't recall exactly the details of what was posted but there was some sort of degrading effect, according to the poster. The thread was some time ago. I'll see if I can find it.

Patrick Cooper · June 9, 2007

I found the thread. I'll copy and paste the relevant quotes.

Phil Rodes: ?Hi,

I have taken some time to form the opinion that copying from digibeta (which is slightly compressed) to DVCAM (which is much more compressed) looks noticeably worse than going straight to DVCAM - digibeta compression is nothing like DVCAM compression and seems to introduce artifacting that DVCAM finds objectionable. Avoid doing it.?

Patrick Cooper: ?And would there be any extra quality gained by going from Digibeta to MiniDv as opposed to going straight

to MiniDv??

Phil Rodes: ?No, you'd lose.?

Patrick Cooper: ?Thanks Phil. Perfectly understood.

Patrck Cooper: ?Interesting that going from Digibeta to DVCAM introduces quality issues. However, what if you were planning to distribute your film on DVDs. Would burning a DVD from the edited Digibeta tape cause any of the same quality issues that are present when going from Digibeta to DVCAm or MiniDv??

Michael Colllier: ?yes, it would introduce problems. The problem is that any compressor has a habbit of leaving little high-frequency artifacts. Theres not much contrast to them, but they do have a lot of noise in very random patterns. When another compressor comes in contact with this compression, it trys to replicate the noise as best it can, but usually it just confuses the compressor, when the uncompressed image would be easier for it to work with. Think of it as artifacts on top of artifacts.

There are ways around it, you can turn up the motion sampling on your compressor. Turn up the bitrate and use the best quality master you can to make your MPEG copy. Digibeta is a high quality master and won't introduce much artifacting. DVCAM is allright, but uncompressed 8 or 10 bit is always best.?

Robert Houllahan · June 9, 2007

Thanks Robert. I know it might seem strange there being quality problems going from DigiBeta to DVD but there was another thread on this forum which highlighted certain issues with the image using this workflow. I can't recall exactly the details of what was posted but there was some sort of degrading effect, according to the poster. The thread was some time ago. I'll see if I can find it.

I read the following and I have to say that loss of quality from a D-beta to DV dub has never been a problem for me if there is any issue it is so minor as to be negligible. Making DVD's from D-Beta has been a A #1 workflow for years now.

My 0.02c

-Rob-

Michael Most · June 9, 2007

Phil Rhodes: I have taken some time to form the opinion that copying from digibeta (which is slightly compressed) to DVCAM (which is much more compressed) looks noticeably worse than going straight to DVCAM - digibeta compression is nothing like DVCAM compression and seems to introduce artifacting that DVCAM finds objectionable. Avoid doing it.?
Patrick Cooper: ?And would there be any extra quality gained by going from Digibeta to MiniDv as opposed to going straight

to MiniDv??

Phil Rodes: ?No, you'd lose.?

Theory, myth, and basically hogwash: What Phil said.

Reality: Digital Betacam's compression is as bulletproof as you can find in the industry. Projects have been done with it for years that have gone through multiple tape generations - a worst case scenario - with no problems whatsoever, at least none of the type that Phil is falsely assuming one would have. If you want to blow it up to 1000 times its original size and examine it pixel by pixel I'm sure you could find something. But in the real world, and using real images, none of what Phil is alluding to exists.