http://videomaker.com/community/forums/ Videomaker Forums » Forum: High-Definition - Recent Posts en Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:48:06 +0000 http://videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/hd-quality-goes-down#post-52481 Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:27:45 +0000 brinks315 52481@http://videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Ã? you can try <strong>Pavtube <a href="http://www.pavtube.com/hd-converter/">HD Converter</a></strong><a href="http://www.pavtube.com/hd-converter/"> </a>to help u . i t really works very well without many quality losses.</p> http://videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/pls-urgetn-canon-hg21-or-canon-hf200-or-sonyhdr-xr520#post-52456 Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:45:49 +0000 jerryrock6 52456@http://videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p> Hi all ,</p> <p>Pls help me to buy an handy cam.. an competion is comin soon in our place.. i am confused with sony hdr xr520 or canon hg21 or canon hf200..  all are HD cams.. but pls help me to choose... i req 25p mode, low light, image stabilisation, slowmotion and nit mode... cause am confused with theses features among the three cams... cause sony is havin great memory -240gb/\... but i am confused with the other features.. pls hrlp me out</p> http://videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/hd-quality-goes-down#post-52381 Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:12:41 +0000 billy250 52381@http://videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p> which AVCHD converter do you recomend, is VoltaicHD any good? </p> http://videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/hd-quality-goes-down#post-52376 Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:58:07 +0000 NeilRussell 52376@http://videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p> I use the SD100 too and edit with Sony Vegas, the MTS files from the camera go right onto the timeline and are editable and exportable into any format I require.</p> <p>You can also simply rename the extension on the files from MTS to MPG and they should open in any editing program with no loss to the video quality. </p> <p>There's a suggestion above to switch the camera to SD mode, but unfortunately the 100 only does HD formats.</p> <p> </p> http://videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/hd-quality-goes-down#post-52375 Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:35:30 +0000 hans 52375@http://videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>I use a Sony FX1000 so my footage (on tape) is *.m2t. My NLE is Sony Vegas Pro 9c. I have the same loss of quality when I am rendering to PAL (I live in the Netherlands) SD widescreen. Taking video footage in SD is no option for me. I didn't by a new HD camera to shoot in SD. But when you want to share your video with your friends, you will mostly have to burn it on a DVD. What I do is render the project to a *.wmv format. Then it is still HD. I import the *.wmv file in DVD Architect (comes with VEGAS) and burn it on a DVD. Before the burning of the DVD starts, DVD Architect will render the file again to PAL SD Widescreen format. The quality of that DVD is as it should be, but it takes a long time rendering. So if anyone knows a shorter method?  </p> http://videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/hd-quality-goes-down#post-52373 Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:49:57 +0000 birdcat 52373@http://videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>I record in HD all the time and render out to SD most of the time - My NLE (Sony Vegas) does a superb job of downconverting to SD and what I view on my DVD player looks great.</p> <p>I do convert the MTS files to M2T using VASST/New Blue FX's AVCHD Upshift first so maybe that is an option for you.</p> http://videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/hd-quality-goes-down#post-52364 Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:49:42 +0000 geraldprost 52364@http://videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>You are going from HD to SD. The encoding process is trashing your video. If you are publishing to DVD, switch your camera to wide screen SD. This way the camera does the downsizing. The encoder doesn't have to compress as hard so your results will look better. I know it sound odd but unless you are publishing to blue ray, it makes no sense to shoot HD. You're still getting the value of the HD. I had to do a test myself before I would believe it. I took some video in HD then burned it to DVD. Then I took some the same footage in SD footage and burned it to DVD. The SD footage looks better. Until we get better encoders this is what we are up against. Gerry in Calgary.</p> http://videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/hd-quality-goes-down#post-52349 Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:02:40 +0000 Johnboy 52349@http://videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p> you can purchase an AVCHD converter for $35.00  check out VoltaicHD, it will probably help you out greatly.</p> http://videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/hd-quality-goes-down#post-52342 Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:04:11 +0000 billy250 52342@http://videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p> Basically ive got a panasonic hdc sd100 and when i put my hd footage on to my PC using the software it came with, panasonic hd writer, the quality is brilliant. But i can't edit this footage with adobe premiere pro cs3 or pinnacle studio 11 because i need to save it as an mpeg2 file first. But when i save it as a mepg2 file the quality is rubbish compared to what it looked like on the hd writer software. Plus it only gives me the option on the software to save it as a mpeg2 file.</p> <p>Im getting really annoyed because the picture quality is fantastic when it is on the camcorder and the hd writer but when i edit it after ive saved it as a mpeg2 file(which is the only option on the hd writer), the quality is quite frankly crap. </p> <p>Just wondering how i can get the footage off of my hd camera and edit it in the best possible quality, i want it to look like the footage on the camera, is this possible?!Do you have to save the footage in a different file format and how do you do this. Im just getting in to filming and am a bit thick on things like this as you can probably tell. please speek terms i can understand, cheers</p> http://videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/avchd-need-to-convert-which-file-is-best#post-52337 Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:03:29 +0000 Johnboy 52337@http://videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p> get what you can afford, quad cores will do fine as long as you have a good amount of RAM as well.  Depending on what NLE Software you use, the video card may not matter in the end as some like Sony Vegas does not use the GPU for rendering.</p> <p>John</p> http://videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/avchd-need-to-convert-which-file-is-best#post-52336 Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:56:18 +0000 william 52336@http://videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Hi </p> <p>I am new to video editing , and a bit confused already .</p> <p>I bought a avchd camcorder canon hf 200 , but my computer is to slow to edit , will buy a new computer later on , but I know now that it needs to be a fast one , so need to safe some money first </p> <p>meanwhile I need still to work with what I have , so I guess the only solution is to convert the files</p> <p>My questions are : which files are best to use without loosing quality , and which program to use to convert them  </p> <p>for computer , will any quad core do the job , or does it need to be the i7, for non professional use</p> <p>thanks already William</p> <p> </p> http://videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/an-alternative-to-acdsee-on-h264avchdmpeg2-video-browsing-and-managing#post-52330 Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:40:05 +0000 famering 52330@http://videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Today, I was cleaning up files on an old hard disk. In it, I met again many softwares I used to be using during last decade. ACDSEE, PHOTOSHOP, ULTRA EDITOR and many others, some of them are still my favorite tools today.</p> <p>Watch the Windows Vista I am using now, what a similar looking between the explorer and the old ACDSEE classic. The so called thumbnail-view layout, which I first saw in ACDSEE classic, is nowadays a most common user interface standard.</p> <p>Thumbnail-view is not the only strong point that ACDSEE holds. <br />ACDSEE is still the best when the image browsing speed is measured. That's why I am still using ACDSEE as my picture browser, although the Windows now can do it natively(but slowly). This shows, there is always a chance to survive for an unique technology, like the image browsing speed of ACDSEE.</p> <p>On the contrary, when we turn to the speed of video browsing, ACDSEE falls into the common category of DirectShow filter based applications. ACDSEE does not decode video itself, so its video browsing speed is limited by the DirectShow.</p> <p>This gave an opportunity to the video manager I am using now, the Smart Mate for DV and DVB.</p> <p>Based on special video technology from FameRing, Smart Mate for DV and DVB is 20~30 times faster than DirectShow based softwares when browsing and taking thumbs of movies.</p> <p>I have a Hauppauge HD PVR DVB Box with a tuner installed on PC. I've recorded about several hundreds of H.264/AVCHD movies on my hard disk. They are .ts files, aka transport stream. Every now and then, I need to organize them, search them, bookmark them, share them with my friends. Just like what I did to my Jpeg photos. Further more, I want to edit the movies, like cutting commercials out of them, this leads to the most valuable part of Smart Mate for DV and DVB. It has the world's first H.264/AVCHD/MPEG2 frame accurate cutter without re-encoding.</p> <p>Smart Mate for DV and DVB not only supports frame accurate cutting on H.264/AVCHD/MPEG2, but also does it in a fastest way. It only re-encodes the gop on start point and end point, middle part of movie remains untouched. This gives the highest speed cutting while reserving highest video quality. So called, "Smart Cut".</p> <p>If anyone else needs an easy but professional management solution for H.264/AVCHD/MPEG2 movies from Satellite video receiver, DVB HD PVR, DV Camcorder, or INTERNET, the Smart Mate for DV and DVB is the software you must have. FameRing also has video manager for all popular formats, called MovieShop, I was only using the version customized for H.264/AVCHD/MPEG2.</p> <p>Come back to the ACDSEE, it will always be my image browsing tool, but not for the video browsing and managing.<br /> <br />To me, the Smart Mate for DV and DVB is an alternative to ACDSEE on video files. That is why we like competition, which gives us more and more better softwares.</p> <p>May be some time later, Windows will be able to browse H.264/AVCHD/MPEG2 .ts movies natively(cuts frame accurately? I do not think so), like the thumb-nail view it learned from ACDSEE. But it will never be the only software left, because the unique technology always survives, as it is unique. The customers will always have alternative and better choices.</p> http://videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/hd-tape#post-52313 Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:34:37 +0000 HDVideoPro 52313@http://videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>@jkidder - No affiliation, I'm just an HDV aficionado (freak) as in HDV Video Professional - But I do enjoy their magazine. I'm involved in many different levels of using video and photography in every way from charity volunteer work to product development for HD screen manufacturers. I like the different aspects both magazines seem to cover, though - as they (Videomaker and HDVideoPro) are the first two I reach for.</p> <p> </p> <p>Video for me me is just a chance to enjoy both technology and artistry at the same time :)</p> <p>on of the aspects of this publication I especially like is the voice of the "do-it-yourself" independent filmmakers that will be appearing in future articles - ever wondered if you could make your own movie? Get ready to be inspired!  </p> http://videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/hdr-fx7-is-this-a-good-consumer-hd-camera#post-52295 Tue, 17 Nov 2009 05:56:15 +0000 wilsonallen01 52295@http://videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>This camera is really nice....I have and I am happy that it is really very good and sometimes I enjoy my photography with this camera...</p> <p>I liked it very much.. I captured so many pics of nature, animals, snakes, models, <a title="Diamond Jewelry" href="http://jewelrydiamonds.wordpress.com">diamond jewelry</a> like <a title="Diamond Rings" href="http://www.diamondexotica.com">diamond rings</a>, <a title="Engagement Rings" href="http://www.diamondexotica.com/engagement-ring.aspx">engagement rings</a>, old villagers etc..I will definitely show you in the next post....</p> <p>Thanks</p> http://videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/best-codec-for-distributing-hd-stock-footage-clips#post-52272 Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:55:57 +0000 XTR-91 52272@http://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://videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/best-codec-for-distributing-hd-stock-footage-clips#post-52269 Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:18:49 +0000 david5566 52269@http://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://videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/best-codec-for-distributing-hd-stock-footage-clips#post-52254 Sun, 15 Nov 2009 23:17:00 +0000 XTR-91 52254@http://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://videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/best-codec-for-distributing-hd-stock-footage-clips#post-52245 Sat, 14 Nov 2009 22:36:53 +0000 EarlC 52245@http://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://videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/best-codec-for-distributing-hd-stock-footage-clips#post-52244 Sat, 14 Nov 2009 20:43:51 +0000 joelholland 52244@http://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://videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/hdr-fx7-is-this-a-good-consumer-hd-camera#post-52243 Sat, 14 Nov 2009 19:15:13 +0000 XTR-91 52243@http://videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Now about the Sony HDR-FX7, I'd say at the least it's a prosumer camcorder. My only complaint is the sensor types being CMOS rather than CCDs. The imaging system, as well as the pro shutter speed probably makes up for some of the side affects such as shutter roll.</p> <p> </p> <p>The Canon HF-S10 is a truly compelling and powerful camcorder for its class (900 horizontal lines of resolution). It offers a wide array of manual controls that you typically don't find in consumer models. I'd say these are two of its biggest strong points.</p> http://videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/hdr-fx7-is-this-a-good-consumer-hd-camera#post-52235 Sat, 14 Nov 2009 05:53:21 +0000 1zed4u 52235@http://videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p> I own a FX7 and have owned one since 2006, but putting it up against my 2009 Canon Vixia HG-20 avchd camera is not even worth comparing. HDV cameras are on their way out as far as I'm concerned, mainly because the quality of the new avchd cameras are so breathtaking and they make the old tape cameras look like nothing more than standard definition in comparison. I suppose the video that my FX7 takes is okay, but it's probably going to collect dust because I'll be using my camera that gets the best quality video, and that's my Canon.</p> http://videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/hd-tape#post-52219 Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:58:27 +0000 jkidder 52219@http://videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>@HDVideoPro - are you a representative for the magazine?</p> http://videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/hd-tape#post-52207 Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:35:14 +0000 HDVideoPro 52207@http://videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Comp1 - no link - just some font stuff that showed up that wasn't visible (remove if you want)</p> <p>Also - although reusing tapes is not recommended (by manufacturers)  - I have had great success re-recording over a dozen times per tape on the Digital Master series Sony tapes with no loss of resolution. Apparently when recording SD on SD tapes ghosting or pixilation was appearing after 6 uses - maybe it has something to do with the huge amount of information I'm recording? (1080 24p) but I don't know for sure. </p> <p> . . . of course I would recommend using a new tape when filming "one take only" type materiel - I reuse tapes (for example) when shooting models for promotional video and photography (I use frame grabs for portfolio photos) but, use new tapes when filming documentary material.</p> <p>BUT, on the other hand - you would only know if a tape doesn't have a dropout when you record the entire tape and review? So I guess their are a lot of things to consider!</p> http://videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/best-codec-for-distributing-hd-stock-footage-clips#post-52174 Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:01:40 +0000 EarlC 52174@http://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://videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/hd-tape#post-52164 Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:21:27 +0000 composite1 52164@http://videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p><em>"The difference in price is only because some actually pay it."</em></p> <p>Grinner,</p> <p>I read you loud and clear on that one. I've used primarily Panasonic Professional Mini-DV tape since '03 and the only drop-outs I've ever encountered were when I missed scheduled head cleanings or had dramatic temperature changes. Those instances happen very rarely. I do notice a miniscule difference between the pro grade tape and the consumer stuff, but it's not enough to stop me from pulling an emergency pack off the shelf of the local 'S-Mart'.</p> http://videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/hd-tape#post-52161 Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:45:24 +0000 grinner 52161@http://videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p> Sounds like a sales pitch. The difference in price is only because some actually pay it. It's not unlike bottled water vs tap water... it's the same stuff. It's as easy as using and compairing the two, really. </p> <p>Like I said, I only purchased HDV tape int he beginning when I mistakenly thought I had to. Now that I know I don't, well, I don't. I simply lay down 1s and 0s on a tape that costs less and can be purchased at Sam's. ;) I get no more dropouts whatsoever than when buying tapes stock that costs much more.</p> http://videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/best-codec-for-distributing-hd-stock-footage-clips#post-52148 Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:58:38 +0000 XTR-91 52148@http://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://videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/best-codec-for-distributing-hd-stock-footage-clips#post-52132 Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:36:57 +0000 joelholland 52132@http://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://videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/hd-tape#post-52127 Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:38:44 +0000 composite1 52127@http://videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>HD,</p> <p>Yep, that's pretty technical. BTW, what was the info at the bottom you tried to post?</p> http://videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/hd-tape#post-52123 Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:17:26 +0000 HDVideoPro 52123@http://videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>OKAY, if you really want to get technical - this is how it works: </p> <p>Digital tape is produced in long rolls or "spools" about 10 - 20 ft across in length - yes this would make all the tape the same in theory - EXCEPT - It's not. Manufacturing of said tape is produced in a clean room environment where the air particle tolerance is usually measured in microns (a unit of length equal to 1 millionth of a meter or .00039 of an inch) - Digital Master for example is cut from the center-most part of the spool where the least amount of particulate matter can settle on the product. Since particles cause "drop-outs" or "dropped frames" - this is why a higher price is charged - and gladly paid by professionals.&lt;span style="font-family: Microsoft Sans Serif;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;"&gt;   &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; </p>