a few hd questions

ushere wrote on 10/20/2006, 9:02 PM
life's too short and i'm too old to post individual questions, and too demented to remember what i've posted anyway. sorry...

i've been offered a 'series' of mini artist profiles - approx 10min each, simple talking head (prob studio shot) with lots of artwork (generally jpg/png/psd). in the past i've usually converted all to png, used excal. pbs move and then fine tuned each picture. obviously worked since they're back for more. however, they want HD. frankly i'm very happy with my 170, don't feel like springing for a v1, or fx, or whatever - just for this project, hence the following questions....

1. do i really need to work in 1080, after a few test i actually thought the artwork (png's) showed up better in 720 (less artifacting, sharper, etc)??

2. what's to stop me shooting 4:3 on my 170 and dropping this into a 720 project maintaining the full res, and placing it frame right / left, and filling in rest of the frame with a bit of arty-farty nonsense? (i tried a test, and it looked / played fine)

3. anyone played with the v1 yet - and how much have you see it priced at (i really don't want to buy one unless it's really unavoidable and i can find other paying work for it?)

4. they, the client, haven't informed me of distribution format (i doubt they are even aware there's something other than 'dvd'), but i'm presuming that it'll probably go out to standard dvd players. what do i need to know / do with 720 / 1080 timeline to produce for dvd?

hey, i know these questions have probably been answered individually elsewhere, but i couldn't find em...

many thanks for your patience,

leslie

Comments

Spot|DSE wrote on 10/20/2006, 9:44 PM
1. do i really need to work in 1080, after a few test i actually thought the artwork (png's) showed up better in 720 (less artifacting, sharper, etc)??

The answer to that question is very much dependent on you. Your video monitor might not be showing 1080, or it might be showing 1080i on a 1080p monitor. You don't mention where you're previewing this...And that is *critical* to making any judgement. Additionally, you don't mention how the art was created. Progressive artwork tho, will always appear best when left progressive.

2. what's to stop me shooting 4:3 on my 170 and dropping this into a 720 project maintaining the full res, and placing it frame right / left, and filling in rest of the frame with a bit of arty-farty nonsense? (i tried a test, and it looked / played fine)
Other than it's not HD, and apparently that's what the client wants...You're merely taking 480 lines of interlaced information and upsamping that to either 1080 lines of interlaced information or 720 progressive lines of information. On a 1080 display, either one will look like hell compared to any HD source.

3. anyone played with the v1 yet - and how much have you see it priced at (i really don't want to buy one unless it's really unavoidable and i can find other paying work for it?)
I have a V1 in my hands right now, very thrilled with it. Has a few things about it I wish were different, but overall...I struggle with whether to use my Z1 or the V1. If there is any question about lighting, I'll take the Z1, but if I want deeper detail on highlights, the V1 is the better choice. 30p is slightly sweeter on the V1, same with 24p, of course. I like the heft of the Z1, and the Z1 has a richer color overall, and has a feature set that I've come to know quite well and appreciate.

4. they, the client, haven't informed me of distribution format (i doubt they are even aware there's something other than 'dvd'), but i'm presuming that it'll probably go out to standard dvd players. what do i need to know / do with 720 / 1080 timeline to produce for dvd?
Not much. Output your HD timeline to a widescreen SD DVD, and that's about it...Vegas does this very, very well.

hey, i know these questions have probably been answered individually elsewhere, but i couldn't find em...
Yeah, answered ad nauseum. If it weren't for the five stickies already in place, it would be nice if Sony put your questions as FAQ's because they're asked a lot.

many thanks for your patience,
ushere wrote on 10/20/2006, 10:18 PM
do you ever sleep ;-)

many thanks for your quick response!

1. i'm viewing on a 'old' switchable sd 4:3 / 16:9 sony hr trinitron. i doubt very much any potential viewers will have anything more elaborate than large lcd tv's. (i'm in australia where no one seems to know where we're going digitally)

2. the artworks are generally photographed on digital slr's at max res (not raw)

3. when the client says HD, i think they mean 16:9 - (i'll have to have a 'serious' talk with them, ha!). anyway, the 'live' interview element is pretty static, and following the golden rule, no more than 12sec of talking head at any one time! it's the artwork that matters.

4. so, if you were to do talking head / artworks (paintings), which camera would you use? bear in mind i'm now 59 and though i always use a trpod when possible, there's going to be a bit of roaming round the artists studio wobble cam style, so think about my wrists please....

5. i had presumed ws sd dvd, would i have any (theoretical) other option at present - on disk, that is?

6. oh for a faq on body part failure ;-)

leslie
farss wrote on 10/20/2006, 10:31 PM
Plenty of people in Oz are buying HD TVs. Mate of mine just got talked into a very big Panny LCD HD set. Native 1080, even has a built in off air recorder. We've got two Bravia "V" series (yuck but hopefully the "X" series will be better).

720p isn't such a huge step up from 16:9 SD PAL, 4:3 NTSC it's chalk and cheese of course.

Nothing wrong with putting 4:3 SD from a 170 into a 1080 frame. It should look perfect so long as you're not enlarging it. If you can fill the rest of the frame why not.
Here's a trick though. You can turn the camera 90deg and rotate the image in Vegas...or buy the 90deg adaptor mount for the camera and software from Serious Magic.

P.S. You could always rent a Z1. I do work for a rental company but it's still a cheap way to try before you buy.

Bob.
ushere wrote on 10/20/2006, 11:22 PM
bob, where are you, and what are the weekend rates like on a z1?

other than that, thanks also for the quick reply, i'm on country time now, so life isn't the panic it used to be, thank goodness, but i do appreciate the speed that questions get answered here.

you're probably right about sales of hd tv's, but i can gaurantee you they're all metropolitan based - i did a quick off the cuff survey of rural electric places, such as harvey norman, betta, etc., and they told me the chaeper lcd's were selling, but bigger plasma and the like slowly, and then mostly to pubs and clubs.

1. how about the diff in shooting 170 vs v1 / z1 in sd pal (4:3, for arguements sake)?

2. have you tried the 90deg trick? i might give it a whirl next time i have the camera out. interesting idea - but what would i need sm's software for if i can turn it in vegas?

thanks again,

leslie.

ps. i have access to 16:9 sd dvcam (530/570, or something like that). how's it compare to z1 in hd?
as i wrote, i'm not all that sure the client doesn't just mean 16:9 and NOT hd....
farss wrote on 10/21/2006, 3:18 AM
Sydney. $215. Don't want to say more, not the place to be pushing our wares, email me direct if you want more info.

Haven't tried the 90deg trick but SM were selling a complete kit, appealed to my Aussie way of thinking. I think the main idea behind their use of it was there's not much point shooting HD 16:9 on a green screen if you're going to CK 60% of the frame out onto one of their virtual sets. No reason though why the same idea cannot be used in other ways..

To be honest I don't think the Z1 does too good a job of shooting 4:3 SD PAL compared to the 170. Most of our clients shoot HDV, if they need SD then downconvert. If you need 4:3, crop and downconvert. The advantage apart from the extra res thanks to the downconvert is you can reframe the shot if needed. Just my opinion here but I really think the Australian outback screams 16:9, those wide, flat spaces....

You're probably right about sales of expensive TVs or anything for that matter in the bush lately. Still no reason not to shoot HD, you can argue the merits of HD but 16:9 is fast becoming mandatory and the HDV cameras are the cheapest way to get 16:9.

Bob.
ushere wrote on 10/21/2006, 3:47 AM
i did as you asked - email on it's way....

meanwhile, just in case you don't know (though i find it unlikely ;-))

having played most of the day with stills and motion, i find 720p gives me the best overall results. i notice it's not an option on sony cameras - can you downconvert the 1080 to 720 in camera then out via firewire?

leslie
farss wrote on 10/21/2006, 7:21 AM
No,
the Sony cameras don't really do 720 that I know of, you can do it in Vegas though.

Bob.