HD format to render NOW for delivery THEN?

johnmeyer wrote on 1/20/2006, 3:10 PM
I shoot HDV. Capture, edit, render to SD for DVD delivery today. However, at some point in the future, when HD playback is widespread, I want to deliver an HD version of the identical project. I can, of course, when that time comes, re-capture the original tapes, resurrect my Vegas project by finding the VEG file, and render to some future HD format.

However, it sure would be easier to do this render right now, thus avoiding having to find the tapes, capture correctly, etc.

What format should I render to now, so a year from now, I can simply drop that video into DVD Architect (the way I do with an MPEG-2 file today for SD DVD delivery), and then author an HD disk?

Comments

Spot|DSE wrote on 1/20/2006, 3:17 PM
Given that we don't know whether DVD Architect will support MPEG 2 in HD resolutions, or MPEG 4, or DivX, or Xvid, or whatever flavor, your BEST solution is to render to either CineForm or to uncompressed 4:2:2 YUV, and store it that way. The Sony uncompressed also is the format if you're going to ever take it to HDCAM for broadcast. The CineForm codec is a lot smaller, and very high quality, so you lose nothing there. If I knew I was never possibly going to broadcast, this is likely what I'd use.
You could additionally render back to m2t/transport stream and just store on tape, and make your DVD from that. Marginal, but negligible loss in that method, but a lot faster render and a lot less disk space.
johnmeyer wrote on 1/20/2006, 4:13 PM
Spot,

Thanks, that was just what I was looking for. Somehow WMV didn't seem like the way to go (which is what I was about to do). I was also considering MPEG4, DivX, etc. Uncompressed is not attractive, because I don't want to invest in that much storage. Even Cineform may be too big. So, m2t and store it on a drive (I'm trying to avoid print to tape and recapture bottlenecks) seems like the way to go.
Spot|DSE wrote on 1/20/2006, 4:30 PM
Figure CineForm at 40 gig an hour, vs m2t at 13 GB an hour, but the quality difference on re-render is astounding. I know that's triple the space, but with CineForm as the master, you'll be a lot happier, IMO.
Jayster wrote on 1/20/2006, 5:46 PM
Perhaps if BluRay (or HD-DVD) ever becomes widely available, especially at 50GB, this would be a means to store the Cineform files. One BluRay disc = 1 hour of video. At some point the media for BluRay would surely be less expensive than a MiniDV HDV tape. But this doesn't solve the problem today. Maybe a year or so later it will.

Meanwhile I think for my own part I'll stick with keeping my VEG files and the HDV source tapes. Recapturing is slow, but probably not a frequent occurrence.
Spot|DSE wrote on 1/20/2006, 8:10 PM
Be aware that you may not be able to have frame-accurate recaptures...that's a sometimes-not good byproduct of HDV.
Laurence wrote on 1/20/2006, 9:34 PM
Yeah I've noticed that, also the sync between audio and video can vary with different captures.

As far as mastering to Cineform compared to mastering uncompressed, the difference is probably less than you would think. Vegas smartrenders Cineform that was previously rendered in Vegas (but not Cineform that was captured with HDLink). If you have a Cineform codec project where the Cineform files were rendered with Gearshift for instance, and you render the complete project, the only parts that gain a generation are the transitions and any Vegas animation. In other words, your incredibly huge uncompressed render would be, for the most part, exactly the same quality! Even if you capture with HDLink, the Cineform codec is designed for multiple rendering generations and deteriorates very little in the process. I would render to Cineform rather than uncompressed.
Spot|DSE wrote on 1/20/2006, 9:44 PM
As I mentioned, uncompressed is required if you're delivering to HDCAM for broadcast. Otherwise, it's a secondary option to using CineForm. CineForm is very, very good, and extremely efficient. But it can't be transferred straight to HDCAM via Vegas and HD/SDI