Shoot HD16:9 or SD16:9 for DVD widescreen?

CLWaldroff wrote on 4/21/2009, 9:26 PM

I have an XHA1 (and an XHA1s) and you can shoot in either HD 16:9 1440x1080 (1.3333) or SD16:9 720x480 (1.2121) . . . and I did some tests to see what rendered better to 720x480 DVD and I can't really see any difference. Maybe I need to shoot some more and look closer? I rendered both clips to 720x480 with 16:9 ratios selected at 8bps so I'm thinking since I rendered them the same it's not going to matter between 1.3333 and 1.2121. Am I wrong with this assumption?

Interesting thing is that the .m2t for the HD clip is around the same size as the .avi from the the SD16:9. I'm assuming the m2t is just compressed better.

Comments

musicvid10 wrote on 4/22/2009, 8:00 AM

There is a slight difference between the dimensions of HD 16:9 and SD 16:9.

(1440 x 1.3333) / 2.250 = 853
720 x 1.2121 = 873

For those that have to convert HD for DVD Widescreen, the slight 2% pillarbox is easily compensated in rendering, or it can be left alone.

If you know that you won't need anything but SD for DVD output, by all means shoot at the SD DV 16:9 setting. Our results (using two XLH1 cameras) are spectacular and I have no reason to think you would gain anything by shooting HD and downrendering.

On the other hand, if there is a chance you will use the material on a BD in the future, there is an advantage to be gained by shooting HD over shooting SD DV and uprezzing later.

rs170a wrote on 4/22/2009, 8:28 AM

Using HD footage on an SD timeline gives you the flexibility to zoom and/or pan a shot if you choose to which can be a real bonus.

Mike

musicvid10 wrote on 4/22/2009, 8:30 AM

Agreed.

CLWaldroff wrote on 4/22/2009, 10:52 AM

I've been thinking the same thing, that if I need anything from a shoot in HD, then I'll have it. But good to know that results won't be different when downgrading either HD16:9 or SD16:9.