HD or DVCAM?

Jamie Sneider · January 20, 2005

Hello,

My name is Jamie Sneider, and I am at a critical stage in shooting a full-legnth feature documentary about breast cancer and family (it's actually not meant to be depressing) for a little over a year.

The camera I have been using is a Sony 3CCD PD-100A. I have about 120 hours of miniDV/DVCAM footage.

What are left to shoot are the interviews of the doctors and family that explain the background story and kid of sum up the experience, and bit of interview voice over work.

I want this film to go to festivals and possibly be shown on TV or in Movie Theaters.

I have been told to shoot the remaining interviews on HD and upconvert my footage to HD from SD, and I have been told to keep shooting the same format, or something in between.

Do you have any recommendations? I want the footage I have shot to look very good, but before I spend tons and tons of money, I do want to show it at festivals and see if there is interest.

I did want the footage of the interviews and extra shots to look very good, quite beautiful compared to the other footage I took. We will have lights, etc., but wanted to know if I should change cameras, and is it worth it for festivals to upconvert?

Thank you so much,

Jamie

Landon D. Parks · January 21, 2005

In my opinion, to change to HD this late in the production would not really do much with the final material.

I would just continuse to shoot SD and then upconvert the footage. If you do switch to HD now, how much of the final result will appear in the final movie? From what it sounds like to me just a small portion.

That MAY (I don't know your script) play out 1-2 minutes in the final film. Will it really be worth renting a whole HD camera package for that? It would'nt be too me.

However, this would be a good time to get to know HD a little better. Where your not commiting a whole production to HD, just a part of it. IT would allow you to get to know how to work with the medium better.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

Edited January 21, 2005 by Landon D. Parks

Jamie Sneider · January 21, 2005

In my opinion, to change to HD this late in the production would not really do much with the final material.

I would just continuse to shoot SD and then upconvert the footage. If you do switch to HD now, how much of the final result will appear in the final movie? From what it sounds like to me just a small portion.

That MAY (I don't know your script) play out 1-2 minutes in the final film. Will it really be worth renting a whole HD camera package for that? It would'nt be too me.

However, this would be a good time to get to know HD a little better. Where your not commiting a whole production to HD, just a part of it. IT would allow you to get to know how to work with the medium better.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Landon,

Thank you so much! I was thinking about the final cut, and you're right - also it is not more important, on the contrary the remaining footage is less important, so i don't want to give it emphasis.

I just wonder, for festivals, if it is necessary to be in HD - and can i make SD footage look better in the Editing.

Landon D. Parks · January 21, 2005

I just wonder, for festivals, if it is necessary to be in HD - and can i make SD footage look better in the Editing.

No, it's not a requirement for most festivals. Even the Very well know ones. For instance, Sundance, Cannes, London, ect.

While HD can make a better impression on the audiance and possible distrobuters, HD is somthing that some festvals cannot even project yet. You either have to Print it out to Film or Have it Projected on a Non-HD projector.

Some festivals do have HD projectors, and of course HD matterial will look better on those projectors than SD matterial.

To the matter of this "Upconversion" Process:

Remeber, you can't really create more resolution where there is'nt any. It does a sort of Interpolation type process, which can also create some unwanted artifacts in the final image.

But at this point, I would suggest you upgrade the Sd footage to "Hd" and if your shooting it Interlaced, by all means use de-interlacing software (www.dvfilm.com has a great program for this).

If, however you do choose to use HD camera for the rest of the films. Try using a Sony HDW-F900, Or if your budget allows for it a HDC-F950. Both Shoot 24p native in 1.78:1 ratio. 950 records uncompressed where the 900 records @ around 112 - 140MBPS.

I'm sure more people who are more experianced than me will want to comment also. Hope my advice has helped you.

Edited January 21, 2005 by Landon D. Parks

Jamie Sneider · January 21, 2005

No, it's not a requirement for most festivals. Even the Very well know ones. For instance, Sundance, Cannes, London, ect.

While HD can make a better impression on the audiance and possible distrobuters, HD is somthing that some festvals cannot even project yet. You either have to Print it out to Film or Have it Projected on a Non-HD projector.

Some festivals do have HD projectors, and of course HD matterial will look better on those projectors than SD matterial.

To the matter of this "Upconversion" Process:

Remeber, you can't really create more resolution where there is'nt any. It does a sort of Interpolation type process, which can also create some unwanted artifacts in the final image.

But at this point, I would suggest you upgrade the Sd footage to "Hd" and if your shooting it Interlaced, by all means use de-interlacing software (www.dvfilm.com has a great program for this).

If, however you do choose to use HD camera for the rest of the films. Try using a Sony HDW-F900, Or if your budget allows for it a HDC-F950. Both Shoot 24p native in 1.78:1 ratio. 950 records uncompressed where the 900 records @ around 112 - 140MBPS.

I'm sure more people who are more experianced than me will want to comment also. Hope my advice has helped you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you again Landon. I am getting the feeling that I should possibly continue to shoot on SD, but get the best DVCAM I can - maybe the Sony DSR-750, and edit it and submit it to festivals, and if there is interest - convert it the best I can to film or another format.

I wonder, if in the editing process, maybe using After Effects, if they can make the SD look a little better?

Thanks again! Have a great night Landon,

Jamie

Michael Most · January 21, 2005

950 records uncompressed where the 900 records @ around 112 - 140MBPS.

The 950 doesn't record anything because it's not a camcorder. It requires an external recorder. The primary difference between the camera and the "camera section" of the 900 is the 950's ability to sample and output at 4:4:4.

You really shouldn't offer advice on things you don't know. And please, please, use a spell checker......

Landon D. Parks · January 21, 2005

he 950 doesn't record anything because it's not a camcorder.

I know that. Trust me, im not that dumb.

I was refering to the fact that If your going to shoot the F950, why would you put it out to 4:2:2? Why not just choose the F900?

It only makes since if your going with the F950 to output it to 4:4:4....

Sorry, I may have miss worded my post.

You really shouldn't offer advice on things you don't know.

Nothing I said in that post was stuff I did'nt know!

And please, please, use a spell checker......

Seeing as how you felt the need to correct me, apparently you had no trouble reading my post. Whatever.

Elhanan Matos · January 22, 2005

I was refering to the fact that If your going to shoot the F950, why would you put it out to 4:2:2? Why not just choose the F900?

There are plenty of reasons to shoot in 4:2:2 over 4:4:4; the F950 (or even the F900) when recording onto an SR tape records 10bits instead of HDCAMS 8bits, you get 12 channels of audio, you can record in stereo mode when you record 4:2:2 onto SR (stereo as in two cameras on one tape, not left and right audio) And recording 4:2:2 lets you record for 50 minutes on each tape, 4:4:4 is about 25 minutes (this is because when your recording 4:4:4 the tape is moving twice as fast). Another reason is that the SR format doesn't compress it's 4:2:2 as much as HDCAM does. But whether it's 4:4:4 or 4:2:2 it's always going to be compressed, but SR isn't as compressed as HDCAM, I think SR is a 2:1 compression and HDCAM is a 5:1 compression, I'm not sure about those numbers so dont quote me on them, and please correct me if you know what the numbers are. This is all assuming that you are shooting with an SR deck with the F950.

Landon D. Parks · January 22, 2005

Fair enough. But still in general if your going for the F950, It's probably so you can get 4:4:4 instead of 4:2:2.

Jamie Sneider · January 22, 2005

Fair enough. But still in general if your going for the F950, It's probably so you can get 4:4:4 instead of 4:2:2.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Whuh? I love it when you guys fight on here -- it's actually quite funny -- maybe I should have done a documentary about that.

I'm just kidding - it's nice to know that you are all so passionate about filmmaking.

I missed a little about the last exchange - and some of the things that Elhanan said. Was he saying that I should shoot 4:2:2? And is that HD?

I am trying to make the footage look somewhat different than the SD that I shot with a Sony PD100A, but not dramatically perfect like HD.

Would shooting with a SDX-900 or DSR-570 be a good compromise?

Thanks so much,

Jamie

Landon D. Parks · January 22, 2005

Whuh? I love it when you guys fight on here -- it's actually quite funny -- maybe I should have done a documentary about that.

It can get fun!

Was he saying that I should shoot 4:2:2? And is that HD?

#1: Not really. He think he was saying something along the lines of shooting HDCAM SR instead of HDCAM in 4:2:2 can produce better results than shooting 4:2:2 on a regular HDCAM deck.

#2: Yes, it's HD. It's called HDCAM SR.

I am trying to make the footage look somewhat different than the SD that I shot with a Sony PD100A, but not dramatically perfect like HD.

Well, my advice is to go ahead and shoot SD and up-vert it to HD. It wont look as good as shooting HD, but it will look better than SD.

Would shooting with a SDX-900 or DSR-570 be a good compromise?

Good thing about the SDX-900 is that it shoot's in 24p, and also that it can record @ 50MBPs OR 25MBPS (Regulare DV is 25MBPS). So your getting half the compression.

The SDX can be a great camera, and I would say its the next best thing to HD itself.

Elhanan Matos · January 22, 2005

If I were you I would finish the project on the PD-100, the festival will not care about that 10% of your project thats shot in HD, what they really want is good content. In my opinion you'll be wasting your money finishing your project in HD. Another bad idea would be upconverting your footage to HD resolution. Finish your project in DV and do the best job that you can do to get it done right.

Landon D. Parks · January 22, 2005

P.S:

but not dramatically perfect like HD.

In my opinion, HD is not dramatically perfect, 35mm is. 65mm is even better, but 35mm is closer to "Dramatically Perfect" than HD.

Just my view.

Jamie Sneider · January 22, 2005

You guys Rock! I so appreciate all of your time and advice. Truly, as a non-filmmaker (obviously), this forum is so wonderful. Landon, Elhanon and Mmost - thanks again. I will let you guys know what happens, and I believe I will stay in SD. I agree - content is most important. I just saw Tarnation, and that is mostly very old video.

Have a great weekend,

Jamie Sneider