http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ Videomaker Community Forums » Tag: high-definition - Recent Posts en Fri, 17 Feb 2012 02:59:22 +0000 http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/making-sd-look-good-on-hdtv#post-57635 Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:00:56 +0000 SargeHero 57635@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Red Giant Software have a plugin called <a title="Instant HD" href="http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/products/all/magic-bullet-instant-hd/">Instant HD </a>which at some degree """fix""" the image quality. It will not make it look HD, but what it really does effectively is scale the video image to conform the video resolution (Example: from 720x480 to 1920x1080) I agree with Composite1, you cannot make a low resolution video look like a high resolution, but with some plugins and color correction you could manage an acceptable remaster footage.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/making-sd-look-good-on-hdtv#post-57632 Tue, 20 Apr 2010 14:09:22 +0000 pseudosafari 57632@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p> I agree with Composite1 but I'd add that if they're still on tape, get them transfered to digital as soon as you can.  In my experience they degrade terribly over time.  Stuff that I converted closer in time to the actual shooting looks a lot better today, looking back.</p> <p>One other thought--try not blowing the picture up to a full screen but keeping it smaller, say 2/3 screen size with a nice background behind it to fill the rest of the screen.  Not ideal, but it might make it more "bearable" if it's that bad.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/making-sd-look-good-on-hdtv#post-57625 Tue, 20 Apr 2010 12:33:05 +0000 composite1 57625@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Michael,</p> <p>My friend you are trying to change 'apples' to 'oranges'. You're trying to make a much lower resolution format of video look 'better' on a much higher video format TV. Not gonna' happen. </p> <p>That said, depending on what the original tapes were shot on, what kind of condition they're still in (analog tape degrades after a number of years and how many times have they been viewed are major factors) will decide how good a 'quality' image you have to work with. You could try to 'remaster' the video in Vegas Pro to a certain degree with color correction tweaks but unless it was shot on a pro Hi-8 or Betacam-SP camera, even 'tweaks' aren't going to help much.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/making-sd-look-good-on-hdtv#post-57624 Tue, 20 Apr 2010 12:17:33 +0000 michaellester 57624@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>When I convert my old VHS and Video8 tapes to digital, they look fine on a regular TV but when viewing</p> <p> them on my 42 inch HDTV, they don't look very good. </p> <p>I use a Toshiba DVD/VHS player (model SD-V296KU) hooked to a Canopus ADVC 300 to convert from analog to<br /> digital. From the ADVC 300, the signal goes to Sony Vegas Pro editing software in the PC. After some editing, the result is burned onto a DVD.</p> <p>What can I do to make the viewing look better on my HDTV. I realize that standard definition cannot<br /> technically be up-converted to high definition but is there some way to make the quality of the picture better than standard definition? </p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/can-i-record-to-hard-drive-from-canon-xl-h1-hdv-or-xh-a1-hdv#post-53834 Thu, 07 Jan 2010 14:31:48 +0000 composite1 53834@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Your 'tapeless' options with the Canon pro cams are; record direct to laptop via firewire with Adobe On-Location or an old copy of Serious Magic's DV Rack (HD version) which is the same product. On-Location comes with the Premiere Bundle, but there is a Mac based program that does the same thing yet at the moment the name eludes me.</p> <p>Outside of software, portable harddrive and direct to flash media recorders are your best bet. Focus Enhancements make some good options for both types of recorders. They connect to your camera's firewire port and you can record to both tape (for archiving) and to CF cards or Harddrive at the same time. They generally use quicktime .mov files in addition to other media files so the clips will go straight into your NLE with just an offload session. The main thing is to check and make sure they or any other brand you choose is compatible with both your camera and your NLE software.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/can-i-record-to-hard-drive-from-canon-xl-h1-hdv-or-xh-a1-hdv#post-53829 Thu, 07 Jan 2010 13:33:45 +0000 Utopia 53829@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>I am looking to upgrade from a sony pro-sumer mini dv to a professional model Canon BUT as technology seems to be moving away from tape, I was hoping to find a model that would record to hard drive.  Canon does not seem to offer the pro models with a hard drive, only mini hd tape.  What would be the best route for me to go to get high quality images with ease of inputting for editing?  </p> <p>Also, I often get requests to videotape events.  As these situations do not call for editing, simply putting the recording on a format that the consumer can view at home (dvd), I want to minimize my post production time.  With the mini dv I currently use, I have to import all of the footage into the computer, put it together in final cut, and export to dvd.  All time consuming.  Can anyone recommend a way around this while still getting good quality?  I have even considered the cameras that record straight to dvd, but they all seem to be low end consumer models and I was not sure how good a quality the end product would be.  Suggestions?  &lt;span style="white-space: pre;"&gt; &lt;/span&gt;</p> <p>&lt;span style="white-space: pre;"&gt;A&lt;/span&gt;s the rest of my work is specialty pieces that require considerable editing, I was hoping to find a camera that would allow me to do both.  It is cost prohibitive to have to buy a separate camera for each application, not to mention a lot of gear to haul around.  </p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/best-codec-for-distributing-hd-stock-footage-clips#post-52272 Mon, 16 Nov 2009 06:55:57 +0000 XTR-91 52272@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>From what I've read, everyone seems to say that H.264 provides the best effeciency in compression while retaining a quality that is nearly identical to the MPEG-2 (standard DVD) codec. If you're selling online, I'd go with what everyone said about using the H.264 advanced video codec. DV-AVI retains the most quality, but the final output for any video production (e.g. TV, Web, DVD, Blue-ray, Theatre) use a compression codec that retains merely a fraction of DV-AVI's bitrate. All mentioned above, with <em>maybe</em> the exception of theatre, utilize some sort of codec with the standard MPEG-2 bitrate or something else below.</p> <p> </p> <p>If the stock footage market is raving over H.264 and other AVC formats, than I'd export H.264 for effeciency and compatibility purposes.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/best-codec-for-distributing-hd-stock-footage-clips#post-52269 Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:18:49 +0000 david5566 52269@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>well, it depends on what you rational behind "best". Best quality, best compatibility, or both?<br />For me, I will encode video with H.264 codec. Well of those H.264 is easily the most compatible with other computers.  Yet you can also get a better looking picture with H.264. But keep in mind that picture quality increase with file size, so encoded with H.264 may give you a big size.</p> <p> </p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/best-codec-for-distributing-hd-stock-footage-clips#post-52254 Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:17:00 +0000 XTR-91 52254@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>What I meant was selling copies of the MPEG-2 (Transport Stream) footage in its original format. As a second option for buyers, you should also sell copies of your footage in the DV-AVI format, which is very universal for video editing.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/best-codec-for-distributing-hd-stock-footage-clips#post-52245 Sat, 14 Nov 2009 14:36:53 +0000 EarlC 52245@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>JPEG is lossy, moreso I suspect, that H.264 might prove to be in spite of the different approach to compression. If I were to need a solution to which you're referring, I suspect I'd make do with the overall benefits of H.264 and its (as you agree and stated) universality.</p> <p>Though Ning was used as a reference regarding Flash preview, there are certainly other available programs offering similar Flash conversion that might make this a go to solution for you - popular and fairly universal as well, playback wise.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/best-codec-for-distributing-hd-stock-footage-clips#post-52244 Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:43:51 +0000 joelholland 52244@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Thanks for weighing in guys!</p> <p>XTR- I agree that leaving the footage in its native format would be the most ideal solution, but mpeg2 doesn't have a cross-platform codec. If captured on Apple it works with apple, if captured on PC it works with PC.<br /> So unfortunately I do need to re-compress into a universal format. </p> <p>The question then becomes: image sequence like Photo-JPEG (which is known to hold pretty good quality and works with almost all platforms), or MPEG4 using H.264 which also holds good quality and has widespread compatibility because of QuickTime player 7+ coming packaged with the codec. Thanks for ipod/iphone almost everyone has QT and therefore H264 regardless of computer type. </p> <p>So the new question: Photo-JPEG versus H.264. Which do you think is better? Also, for quality, 90%? or 95%? I've heard that at some point (I've heard 90) going much higher adds only file size to HDV material, not any additional quality.</p> <p>Earl - Interesting concept with regard to the flash previews. Unfortunately Ning caps bandwidth usage pretty low and charges a good amount when it is passed. :( Luckily we have a great server setup and plenty of bandwidth of our own to go around!</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/best-codec-for-distributing-hd-stock-footage-clips#post-52174 Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:01:40 +0000 EarlC 52174@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>If you can figure out what XTR is recommending, then fine, but I'd strongly consider utilization of the H.264 (mpeg4) as far as hitting on something that is widely universal. That, or convert your clips to flash. Get an account with Ning at <a href="http://www.ning.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.ning.com</a> and let them convert your footage, then use their link or embed code with their very good quality flash conversion and deliver that, or use Ning as a landing site and steer your viewers there - much cheaper distribution.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/best-codec-for-distributing-hd-stock-footage-clips#post-52148 Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:58:38 +0000 XTR-91 52148@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>For retaining the maximum quality, I'd keep the footage in the format originally recorded. If the format is HDV (MPEG-2 TS), then I'd also convert and provide a DV-AVI alternative for buyers.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/best-codec-for-distributing-hd-stock-footage-clips#post-52132 Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:36:57 +0000 joelholland 52132@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>There are many different codecs/compression formats and options for HD, so I'm hoping you can give me your input on the best/most universally compatible format for distribution of HD clips on data DVD.</p> <p> I am going to be shipping 20 HD clips (about 15 seconds or so each) to hundreds of people, all on a variety of editing systems. So I need to pick a good intermediary codec that is very compatible with most systems, maintains high quality, and balances a file size that isn't too out of control. </p> <p>Source of footage: Canon XH-A1 HDV. I will be exporting to 1920x1080 60i resolution, and here are my ideas/options as I see them: </p> <p>1) Photo-JPEG Quicktime files. Seems to be compatible with almost all systems and maintains high quality, but the file sizes can get large. Also, deciding what quality level to use (I currently go with 95%/best) is tough. What is optimal for HDV? </p> <p>2) H.264 Quicktime files. Thoughts? Seems to be a great codec for maintaining quality and smaller file size than Photo-JPEG, but how universally compatible is it? </p> <p>3) Something different than the two above that I haven't thought of. Please let me know your thoughts!</p> <p> Thanks, Joel</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/lo-fi-vs-hi-def#post-39851 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 16:53:49 +0000 jerronsmith 39851@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>It actually depends on who the audience is. Marketing is targeted to a specific audience.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/lo-fi-vs-hi-def#post-39840 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 10:51:07 +0000 blumantaray 39840@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p><em>One of the rules of thumb in creating content for the web is always to build for the lowest common denominator of your expected audience first. </em></p> <p>That's kind of what I was getting at. I guess part of the problem with my question is that I was talking about both production values and content, which is where it gets confusing.</p> <p>I finally found an example of what I'm talking about. The company gotvmail recently released viral videos with Gary Busey in them (you can watch them at <a href="http://www.garybuseyonbusiness.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.garybuseyonbusiness.com</a>). These actually seem more or less professional, shot in a small studio probably, but they also have a kind of lo-f, user-generated feel about them, partly because Gary Busey is so stupid but because they're so off-the-cuff. I don't know whether they're HD or not. But this is the kind of video that could potentially appeal to a youtube surfer while making it clear that it was made by a company with more money than you and your home movie makin' friends.</p> <p>So, to rephrase the question, is it better when companies aim for the kind of idiocy that gets hits these days online, or is there a place for more classic advertisement?</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/lo-fi-vs-hi-def#post-39718 Fri, 29 Aug 2008 15:18:37 +0000 jerronsmith 39718@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Another issue is that the playback of high definition video requires greater system resources on the viewers computer than the lower definition counterparts.</p> <p>One of the rules of thumb in creating content for the web is always to build for the lowest common denominator of your expected audience first.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/lo-fi-vs-hi-def#post-39680 Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:06:23 +0000 domineaux 39680@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p><em>I presume you are talking about website playback of video  </em></p> <p><em>It's got a lot more to do with user connection speeds and computer hardware when you provide video in HD.</em></p> <p><em>HD requires more resources at the server level.</em></p> <p><em>If we didn't have DSL and Cable connections the Youtube would not exist even using standard def.</em></p> <p><em>Most sites would do well to have a standard and Hi-Def choice.</em></p> <p><em>This way users can click on Standard, which isn't that bad in some formats.</em></p> <p><em>I have an e6600 quad core processor OC to 3.4GHz, 4 gig of ram, nvidia 8800gtx OC 512MB Video card and DSL connection. WHen I try to play HD I frequently cannot get a good stream, and must constantly click on the arrow. There are some good formats that playback very good resolution quality and they aren't HD.</em> </p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/lo-fi-vs-hi-def#post-39677 Thu, 28 Aug 2008 09:30:42 +0000 blumantaray 39677@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p> Maybe this is an odd start to a thread because I don't have any real question per se, I just find it interesting how (and correct me if I'm wrong) as the technology for creating movies and distributing them gets better and better we have websites like youtube and google video where millions of people are watching some of the most horrendously compressed video I've ever seen. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking these sites, because they do what they do well -- they bring content to the masses with speed and can expose a lot of people to new audiences. But now video production, even for corporations, requires riding this thin line between lo-fi content that can be cheaply and broadly distributed, and hi-def cutting edge content that expresses professionalism.</p> <p>I can't really think of any good examples where a company has done both, which may weaken my argument (maybe you can), but it's a discussion worth having. What do people seem to want more of these days?</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/ode-to-the-camera#post-38605 Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:50:34 +0000 grinner 38605@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>I'm kind of hard on a camera. Thought I'd make a trubute piece:</p> <p><a href="http://moddinart.com/camera.wmv">http://ModdinArt.com/camera.wmv</a></p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/need-help-picking-pro-hd-camera#post-38231 Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:10:29 +0000 P63 38231@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <blockquote> <blockquote> <blockquote> <blockquote> <blockquote><p>One thing that you may want to consider: although the quality of a compact HD camera like the HVX200 or XHG1 may be just as high as a larger HD camera, appearance will make an impression on your clients. </p></blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote> <p>x2</p> <p> LOL, panasonic has a new camera that is big by design, with this tiny little lense up front (hidden by a big housing).</p> <p>I did a gig recently in which my larger camera wasn't visible to the audience. I had a smaller camera in hand. Two people approached me worried about the quality of the resulting disk. Presentation is critically important, not just in the delivered product, but at every step of the project.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/can-hd-camera-record-in-sd#post-37294 Mon, 09 Jun 2008 09:19:56 +0000 chrisColorado 37294@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>The canon XH A1 is a pretty good camera that i used on my last film. We shot in SD I think. It's a nice camera, if you like miniDV, which I do not.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/can-hd-camera-record-in-sd#post-37281 Sun, 08 Jun 2008 20:44:50 +0000 robGRAUERT 37281@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p> hmm...im surprised the XH-A1 shoots SD too. It doesn't say that in B&amp;H. Well that's pretty sweet.</p> <p> </p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/can-hd-camera-record-in-sd#post-37275 Sun, 08 Jun 2008 15:52:56 +0000 FrankieBoy 37275@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Hi!</p> <p>I just got my XH-A1 a week ago after reading heaps about it first and checking out lots of beautiful videos on Vimeo.</p> <p>I don't know where you get the idea that the XH-A1 doesn't shoot SD??? It SHOOTS SD in either 4x3 or full 16x9 as well as giving you the option of SHOOTING in HD and outputting that footage as SD DV if you don't have the software or hardware to edit HD. That's a good option, leaving you the original tapes still in HD, in case you some time in the future wanna edit them in HD.</p> <p>So yes, you have THREE options of getting SD out of the XH-A1.  =) I'm an old BIIIG fan of the DVX100 and was very close to buying it - even in these times of HD - but finally bumped into the XH-A1 on the net and having read LOTS about it + mainly watching a lot of videos shot on it, decided it's a better option, giving me more options than the DVX100. I have never had any problems with the DVX100 SD image, except for the fact that it doesn't have true 16x9 capture. I was even thinking of buying the cam and later the anamorphic lens for it, but once the XH-A1 came down to the same price as a brand new DVX100B, the choice wasn't hard. I have been considering the HVX200, too, but it only shoots HD on SP2 cards, which are insanely expensive. Compare that to capturing HD on regular MiniDV tapes. For any longer shooting yo can save all of the original stuff, without any need to constantly download everything off the cards. Alsoif yo find comparisons on the net, you can see that the XH-A1 shoots better low light footage than the HVX200.</p> <p>The XH-A1 is a good cam, best in its price range. And more manual controls than many more expensive cameras.</p> <p>-F-</p> <p> ;)</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/can-hd-camera-record-in-sd#post-36826 Sun, 25 May 2008 22:48:23 +0000 robGRAUERT 36826@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p> Why do you need one that shoots both? Why do you want to avoid shooting and editing in HD and then down converting to SD when you're all done editing? Doing that gives you really nice SD anyway. </p> <p>I'm just curious.... </p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/can-hd-camera-record-in-sd#post-36816 Sun, 25 May 2008 20:18:58 +0000 awes125 36816@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Thanks Rob. I've got a DVX100B right now and I'm extremely happy with the SD quality on it, I was just hoping that HD was something that I may be able to add to the mix of what I can offer. It's a shame that the XH A1 is such a great camera but can't even shoot in SD! Especially since they haven't even really decided on an official media for HD yet.</p> <p>I would LOVE the HVX200 if I had the budget for it. Maybe the FX1, I think it can shoot BOTH SD and HD. Hmmm...</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/can-hd-camera-record-in-sd#post-36811 Sun, 25 May 2008 19:11:04 +0000 robGRAUERT 36811@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p> Nope. I just checked bhphotovideo.com and that camera doesn't shoot SD. Some cameras do shoot SD and HD. The Panasonic HVX200 does. So with a little more research, you may be able to find the right camera. </p> <p>You can always shoot and edit in HD and then down convert to SD. I've never done that before because I haven't yet worked with HD, but I couldn't imagine it taking very long. Doing that will make for very nice looking SD as well. </p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/can-hd-camera-record-in-sd#post-36804 Sun, 25 May 2008 15:14:29 +0000 awes125 36804@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>This may be a dumb question, but can all HD video cameras record in Standard Definition as well? I am thinking of getting an HD camera for various projects but would also like to keep shooting some projects in SD and I don't want to have to down convert everytime. Does the Canon XH A1 shoot in SD?</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/need-help-picking-pro-hd-camera#post-36415 Sat, 10 May 2008 18:23:18 +0000 film814 36415@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <blockquote> <blockquote> <blockquote> <blockquote> <p><em>My question is this….Which $5000.00 HD camera will open the most possible gigs for me? Which camera will limit possible jobs?</em></p> </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote> <p>One thing that you may want to consider: although the quality of a compact HD camera like the HVX200 or XHG1 may be just as high as a larger HD camera, appearance will make an impression on your clients.  I know from personal experience that going into a shoot with a large shoulder-mount camera can give a much more professional look, and I have even gotten comments ("that looks like a really professional/expensive piece of equipment!") about it from customers.  That in mind, you may want to consider a larger camcorder.  This may cost you little more than you were hoping, but in the long run it will be worth it.</p> <p>Jeremy</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/need-help-picking-pro-hd-camera#post-36407 Sat, 10 May 2008 12:08:06 +0000 ReRow 36407@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>i want an inexpensive hard drive high def camcorder with mic inputs light /nightvision stableizer what do i want?</p>