Videomaker – Learn video production and editing, camera reviews › Forums › Technique › Miscellaneous Techniques › HDV 16:9 –> SD 4:3 conversion
- March 6, 2009 at 6:16 PM #37493
I shoot video using 1080i HDV camera. Then I’d like to down-convert it into regular 4:3 SD for editing and producing DVD. What is the best way to for this conversion?
- March 6, 2009 at 7:18 PM #166148
What camera are you using for capturing?
Is the footage already captured to the computer?
What program are you using for editing?
What DVD aplication are you using?
What type of production is this?
Who is the client?
There are several methods to perform this conversion…Please give a little more info so thatwe can givemore accuratesolutions thatwill actuallybeuseful to you.
- March 6, 2009 at 8:00 PM #166149
I would just edit in HD. After editing, drop the HD sequence in a 4:3 timeline. Then export for DVD
- March 6, 2009 at 9:59 PM #166150
1) I use Sony FX1000, HDV 1080i 16:9.
2) This will be my first experience with HD. Plan is to produce SD DVD of this event as soon as possible (I’m fluent with Ulead mediaStudio), and then, eventually, produce Blu-Ray DVD. For the first step I have to convert HD to SD without quality loss and dark stripes due to different ratio.
3) I did not decide yet onEditing and Authoring software. Tried Sony Vegas – too complicated for learning. Friends will help me with Pinnacle12 and/or Abode Premier.
4) I’m ready to upgrade computer if necessary. I know that Adobe requires at least 4GB of RAM.
5) This is 2.5h footage of theatrical performance that requires very heavy editing (two cameras -main is HDV, but backup is SD and I still try to understang how I can use SD footage for HDV production) for home usage by highly appreciated and demanding friends.
Do you say that any HD video editor can do this?
- March 7, 2009 at 8:45 PM #166151
Since you are working with over 2.5 hours of HDV footage that you’ll be editing extensively, I would suggest you perform those computer upgrades you weretalking about…No editing program requires 4GB of RAM to operate, but it will definately help.
If you want faster rendering, you’ll need to look into a faster processor and/or 1 or 2 video cards like the nvidia 8800GT or better.
Again, I don’t know what you use, so your current computer may be able to handle this HDV project with just a minimal upgrade if any.
HDV is an Mpeg2 transport stream file.(m2t file)It’s avery practical compressionformat that looks great and is accepted by most editing applications. If youare performing a simple edit with minimal effects and no color correction you shouldn’t really experience any noticeable quality loss upon final export of your video.
However,if youadd effects or perform color correction to an m2t file, you may experience quality loss upon final export. To eliminateproblems associated with HDV m2t editing, many people use an intermediary codec.
Using an intermediary codec
An intermediary codec like Cineform allows you to capture anAVI file in realtime that will preserve the quality of your HD video while you edit and when you export.
The Cineform HDAVI file will give the results of an uncompressed AVI file which will preserve the visual quality of the original m2t file while maintaing a much smaller file size than an actual uncompressed AVI conversion. Even though the cineform codec will have a much smaller size than an uncompressed AVI, itwill still be slightly larger than the original m2t file, but it will still handle beter in an editing aplication.
If you like Ulead, Movie studio Pro 8 handles HDV editing. However, I believe you’ll have to upgrade to Video Studio Pro X2 (12) if you want to export to blu ray and other newer formats.
I thought Vegas would be perfect for you, but apparently you don’t like it….
If you like premiere orat least have someone to help you like you mentioned, perhaps that may be the best program for you in the long run.
All these programs along with their DVD applications can accept HDV and output DV if you want.
We can give more detailed advice once you decide which applications you’ll use.
Mixing SD and HD
Programs like Ulead Movie Studio and Vegas will atomatically scale SD and HD videoaccording to the project settings, but some manual adjustments may still be required.
If you are using other programs likePremiere, youwill have to manually resize you footage.
Again, once you choose a program, we can give you more specific instructions.
Converting 16:9 to 4:3
If you want to change 16:9 into 4:3, you are basically changing a rectangle into a more of a square shape. There is no way to change a rectangle into a square without some type of loss. Either you will have to squeeze the rectangle or you’ll have to cut off the ends of the rectangle….the choice is yours.
Each program has slightly different ways to acheive this, but it is possible. If you import an SD clip into an HD project and scale the SD footage to fit the HD parameters and then you exported a lossless file format of that video, you willhardly tell the difference between SD file scaled to HD and the original SD file if…you do it right.As mentioned to you in other posts…there are other programs thatupscale SD footage and will evenaddcolor, but they are not necessary…
When mixing HD, SD 16:9 and 4:3 there will most always be some sort of little adjustment that you’ll probably need to know about…
Everything you want to do is possible….just let me know what software you’re going to use.
I’m sure you have more questions…
- March 10, 2009 at 2:13 AM #166152
Thank you for comprehensive reply. It will take me a few weeks to figure out which HD editor I will use (I’m still busy shooting performances – 11 in total). Most important, you have answered the ugrent question: yes, it is possible to produce both – SD and HD -DVDusing mixture of SD and HDV footage.
- March 10, 2009 at 2:36 AM #166153
>>>”Most important, you have answered the ugrent question:yes, it is possible to produce both – SD and HD -DVDusing mixture of SD and HDV footage.”
Yes, but I must say that this should be avoided in the future….If you must mix, it would be best to at least shoot both formats in 16:9 mode if possible.
If you don’t like the lines on the top and bottom when played in a 4:3 tv, a dvd player’s”pan scan” or “zoom” feature will essentiallybe the same if you converted it to 4:3 in post…
- March 10, 2009 at 4:59 PM #166154
I think I can switch my SD Sony VX2100 camera to 16:9 format – is this your recommendation? Do you suggest to produce both – SD and HD versions of DVD in 16:9 format? Sounds like good idea: we do watch Hollywood widescreen movies in this format on our regular TVs…
I pin-pointed choice of Video Editors to two options: Sony Vegas Platinum 9 (becauseit has good reviews andbecasue I already bought this disk and can not return it) and Adobe Premier Elements (becasue my friend offers me some initial help). I would really appreciate additional hints that would facilitate my final choice. Besides, should I consider Adobe Premiere Pro? I already have really good footage andI’m ready to pay extra bucks if Pro will help me to produce much better DVD than Elements. Thank you again for your help.
- March 10, 2009 at 5:59 PM #166155
>>>”I think I can switch my SD Sony VX2100 camera to 16:9 format – is this your recommendation? Do you suggest to produce both – SD and HD versions of DVD in 16:9 format?”
>>>”I pin-pointed choice of Video Editors to two options: Sony Vegas Platinum 9 (because it has good reviews andbecasue I already bought this disk and can not return it) and Adobe Premier Elements (becasue my friend offers me some initial help). I would really appreciate additional hints that would facilitate my final choice. Besides, should I consider Adobe Premiere Pro? I already have really good footage andI’m ready to pay extra bucks if Pro will help me to produce much better DVD than Elements. Thank you again for your help.”
I think Vegas will be great for you…at least for now.
Elements is fine, but you’re in very good hands with Vegas.
I haven’t really been a fan of elements ever since theydumbed it up….it’s still goodhowever.
Premiere Pro is great, and I would never discourage anyone fromgoing “pro.” It’s great software and there are so many options…especially when you combine ALL adobe media software at once…it’s like one big universal program. It just takes time however to really understand it all get your money’s worth.
At this point….I think it’s safe to say that Vegas will allow you to do what you want and then some…but there will probably be some point where you’ll need to expand your toolset and anAdobeCollection is a good way to go long term. I think Premiere ismore cost effectivewhen used in combination with Encore and After Effects and other Adobe software of your choice…You’ll have to learn more for you to get your money’s worthandit’s never too early to start, but as I said, Vegas will be fine for now depending on how far you wanna take it.
I just needed to add that even though I primarily use Final Cut, Premiere, and After Effects, I like Vegas alot. It handles HDV and other formats exceptionallywell and isconsidered by manny to bemore efficientas an audio editor than both FCP and PP2.
- March 10, 2009 at 8:40 PM #166156
I pretty much agree with everything Coreece said. The only thing I disagree with is upscaling SD to HD. When it comes to things like that, I think of it as, “you’re only as strong as your weakest link.” While I don’t work with HD yet, I don’t see how upscaling SD will look any good with in an HD project without up-converting with some hardware. It’s like enlarging a picture in Photoshop; it starts too look crappy when you enlarge it too much. It’s your call though.
Also, in regards to audio editing in FCP or PP2, I think the makers of those programs assume that if an editor plans on doing any really audio editing, they will use a program made specificallyfor audio editing, and I can tell you that Soundtrack Pro and Logic Pro do a hell of a job.
Oh yea, and if you’re going to be working with HDV for a while, you’re computer doesn’t have to be super beefy. If your computer can handle DV, it can handle HDV. They are the same data rate, sometimes HDV is less.
Oh yea, and one last thing. If you have mics all over the place, I’d connect them to your DV camera instead of your HDV camera. Recording HDV to tape records only 12-bit audio.
- March 10, 2009 at 9:25 PM #166157
>>>”I don’t see how upscaling SD will look any good with in an HD project without up-converting with some hardware. It’s like enlarging a picture in Photoshop; it starts too look crappy when you enlarge it too much. It’s your call though.”
I understand what you’re saying Rob….I thought the same thing, but then I actually tried it and and saw no difference in quality on a standard HD TV.
I believe ProRes and Cineform will restore 4:2:2 chroma which will help even more.
I’ve never used any other type of conversion software so I can’t really make a comment on there performance.
Now, even though it looked normal on a normal HD TV or HD computer monitor, I suspect that there may be some artifacts on larger screens or large projections.
try it outRob….if not, I can send you a fileI converted and you can compare with the original.
>>>”I think the makers of those programs assume that if an editor plans on doing any really audio editing, they will use a program made specificallyfor audio editing, and I can tell you that Soundtrack Pro and Logic Pro do a hell of a job.”
Yes, I agree that dedicated audio programs will be better….I’m just saying thatVegas offers apleasantaudio editinginterface that many people prefer over FCP andPremiere Pro. I believe Vegas initially started as an audio editing program if I’m not mistaking and offers a little extra. Either way, sony has a nice credible background in the audio world.
I still use FCP and Premiere for some more than basic editis…But Vegas has impresed me lately. I just want to give them credit too.
Besides I would leave truly complex audio edits to the real audio professionals that use super beefed up rigs….Those guys are amazing….They can hearfrequencies beyond the human range….it is a gift.
- March 10, 2009 at 10:52 PM #166158
I’ll take your word on the upscaling of DV to HDV. Maybe combining DV with HDV is acceptable since HDV is so compressed. When you tested it though, were you just looking at your computer monitor or a HD broadcast monitor? If it’s 1080i/p then you definitely need one of those big monitors so you can see every pixel. Now that I mention it, it’s stuff like that which keep me from transitioning to HD. Too expensive for some chump in college, hahaha.
I can’t speak for Cineform since I’ve never even heard of it until I read this thread, but ProRes will give your video 10-bit color depth and 4:2:2 chroma, which you mentioned. I wouldn’t say it restores anything because your footage won’t look like it was recorded at 10-bit 4:2:2, but the creation of more data will give you better results when color correcting or doing some advanced compositing, all of which you seem to know already. I’m just rambling incase newbies come across the thread.
- March 11, 2009 at 12:42 AM #166159
>>>I’ll take your word on the upscaling of DV to HDV. Maybe combining DV with HDV is acceptable since HDV is so compressed.
No, I wouldn’t ever say that combining SD and HD is a good thing…and I hope I didn’t give you the impression thatthe scaled SDeven looked close to HDV….it didn’t….it didn’t look any better at all. My main point was that I really didn’t notice a difference in SD scaled to HD and the original SD footage….
Obviously HD is a larger size than SD but it’s all the same size when played back on an HD TV…..720×480 widescreen will still fill the fullscreen on an HD TV just like 1080i…..I know there’s a technical explanation, I just don’t know how to say it without writing a novel or showing an illustration.
and Rob….lol…for the millionth time, HDV isn’t that bad….it looks great and the whole world is using it buddy….Any performance or quality issues with editing and rendereing HDV can be resolved by using Cineform, ProRes or some other type of intermediary codec…I’ve seen some stunning, breathtaking HDV video wthout any compression artifacts whatsoever….
I’ll try to put together some nice examples…I’m trying to find the Official Z1U demo video clip that sony used to have on their website….it was converted from HDV to HD-WMV and still looked absolutely awesome without artifacts even after the compression from HDV to WMV for online HD delivery….HDV is used on television everyday also…looks great. I don’t know what else to say….
If anyone has that sony demo, can you pass it along.
Best Regards Rob,
- March 11, 2009 at 1:28 AM #166160
“720×480 widescreen will still fill the fullscreen on an HD TV just like 1080i…..I know there’s a technical explanation,”
Hmm, that’s a good point. I didn’t think of that.
“and Rob….lol…for the millionth time, HDV isn’t that bad….”
lol, maybe my beef with HDV stems from all that i’ve been reading…specifically the high compression. I will admit though, my opinion about HDV is probably useless since I’ve never even shot HDV.
Anyway, we’ve been going back and forth all night. I need a break. Have a nice night.
- March 11, 2009 at 1:57 AM #166161
>>>Have a nice night.
You to Rob.
And btw, there is definately issues with HDV, but I think the main issue with HDV compression is not in the quality the compression produces but how that compression operates in an NLE….as we concluded earlier, an intermediary codec like ProRes of Cineform will resolve those issues.
The greatest thing about HDV is the efficiency of it’s compression and ability toutilize different types of DV media….not it’s editability and rendering qualities.
- April 7, 2009 at 12:18 AM #166162AnonymousInactive
I used Liquid 7 in the past also the Adobe software but ended up with Vegas 8. Add in a couple of plug-ins and its very capable. Any editing suite will be a large learning curve. To me Vegas is much easier than Adobe to get things done. And you don’t have to have after effects to do effects in Vegas. I’d add the Boris plug-ins Graffiti and Fx to complete the set-up. I think the reason some people don’t like or say Vegas is hard to learn have a valid point. If you aren’t used to poking around the software just to see what things will or won’t do then Vegas probably isn’t your cup of tea. I just wish the plug-in makers would hurry up and upgrade their software to 64 bit so I could use Vegas 8.1 all the time. Since you can run both versions at the same time I use 8.1 to get the initial timeline done and rendered then switch over to 8.0 for any effects etc. Only problem is 8.1 can’t render the effects so you loose probably its best feature. It really does speed up rendering. Also you get 3 licences with Vegas. No problem to round up some pc’s and create a render farm. If you decide to go with Vegas check out the books by Douglas Spotted Eagle through Vaast. They have training materials and a lot more for Vegas.
- April 7, 2009 at 2:13 AM #166163
“To me Vegas is much easier than Adobe to get things done. And you don’t have to have after effects to do effects in Vegas.”
This statement is misleading….Premire has hundreds of effects and thousands of capabilities.
After Effects is in a completely different world…Vegas could never hope to achieve the power of AE.
Comparing Vegas or any other NLE to AE is like comparing a hang-glider to a space shuttle.
- April 7, 2009 at 3:49 AM #166164
Also…why do all my previous posts in this thread now have those stupid “” things? I spent lots of time making sure those thingswere deleted when I edited my post…
Seriously…wtf are those things?
Earl….how did you say you got rid of them again? I had a littletrouble understanding your solution.
- April 7, 2009 at 3:41 PM #166165composite1Member
Great advice your passing out. “…Comparing a Hang Glider to a Space Shuttle“, that’s just funny. Actually, Vegas vs AFX would be more like a Cessna to an F-22 fighter jet. Nuke is more like a Space Shuttle (expensive but damn, the places it will take you….) Not knocking Vegas mind you. It is one mighty handy tool, but despite Premiere’s weaknesses it’s intergration with AFX is a tough combo to beat. BTW, to get rid of the funky ‘A’s’ you have to backspace before you start typing your post. I’ve noticed it cuts down on the ‘A’s’ if I have to edit a post.
BTW, Rob HDV is not bad at all. We shoot with GYHD-200UB’s and at 720p 24p or 60p gets us some phenomenal looking stuff. Yeah, 1080i/p ‘looks better’ because they are on the highest (so far) resolution end of HD. Back to Cessnas and Fighter Jets, HD compared to 2k, 4k, or god forbid 6k looks like ‘dog poop’ in comparison. Until they come up with ‘idiot proof’ consumer cams in 6k, I think a good shooter can produce some knock-out footage in HDV.
- April 7, 2009 at 6:55 PM #166166
“Actually, Vegas vs AFX would be more like a Cessna to an F-22 fighter jet. Nuke is more like a Space Shuttle (expensive but damn, the places it will take you….)”
That sounds like a better comparrison.
“Not knocking Vegas mind you.”
Agreed, Vegas is a great program….
“to get rid of the funky ‘A’s’ you have to backspace before you start typing your post.”
- April 7, 2009 at 7:05 PM #166167
“I think a good shooter can produce some knock-out footage in HDV.”
I’ve seen screenshots of fast motion recorded in HDV. It looks like crap – crappier than DV, and I have no idea why anyone would say its acceptable.
- April 7, 2009 at 7:53 PM #166168
- April 7, 2009 at 8:23 PM #166169
haha, there should be a reality show of the HDV drama around here. I’m sure MTV already has it in the works. They have reality shows for everything.
- April 7, 2009 at 11:15 PM #166170composite1Member
Part of the ‘crap’ issue is the screencaps were most likely done on a 60hz LCD monitor. A 120 or 240 would produce far better results in removing that annoying ‘artifacting’.
Whoops! I was going to paste some screencaps here for you to view. NCD. When I get some place to post them so you can compare the images, I’ll get back to you.
- April 8, 2009 at 12:49 AM #166171EarlCMember
Coreece, when you do edits, look for all the weird thingys during your “edit” and click and remove. Used to, when I edited/corrected, and removed paragraph spaces at beginning of each one, they didn’t return, or when I typed and removed them before posting. But NOW, whenever I use dashes, asterisks, bullets, sometimes even quotes, the darn things pop up and I can only remove them during the editing process by physically moving the cursor to them then deleting. The situation has become worse, so the next best thing is to ignore them and let today’s economy be your pet frustration instead 🙂
OK, now I’m going into edit to see what happens. to these , -, ;, *
Got one after the word “during” (What’s with THAT?) and another set of weird thingies including a cents sign and an a with a karat in the …what happens to these, but not with the commas, the dash, semi colon or asterisk. Go figure…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.