workflow help for hdv to dvd

seanfl wrote on 10/24/2005, 6:51 AM
I've figured out most of what I need to do to get good results going from HDV -> dvd. there are a couple things that still don't look right to me.

I'm using a Sony FX1 and capturing into vegas. From there I select my project template as HDV 1080-60i (1440 x 1080 29.97 fps). From there I render to DVD NTSC (I want audio included in the mpg for this project). I select best video render quality. Under the video tab, I change aspect ratio to 16:9. Select two pass for better results.

The output looks good, but I still see some stair stepping on edges. I'm viewing on an Panasonic HD plasma.

Does it have something to do with pixel aspect ratio being 1.3333 for hdv 1080 project properties? Or is this as good as it gets? The original footage looks better than my dvd result (and I guess it should...more resolution, etc.). The jaggy edges aren't great and I'm thinking I have something set up wrong.

thank you for your help. Sean

Comments

epirb wrote on 10/24/2005, 7:43 AM
Not rendering ever to the basic mpeg2 template Im not sure .
I am assuming you arent outputting to DVDA is the reason.
have you tried setting the fields to progressive? and maybe adding a touch .01 gausian blur to the project?

Is it the video itself the has alot of aliasing or titles or both?

Eric
JohnnyRoy wrote on 10/24/2005, 7:59 AM
If you are viewing an SD DVD on an HD monitor then the jaggies are probably due to the upscaling and has nothing to do with MPEG. You will see this even in Vegas.

Try this test:

1. Capture the same scene in both HDV M2T and downconvert DV from the FX1
2. Create a new project in Vegas as HDV 1080-60i (1440 x 1080 29.97 fps)
3. Drop both the M2T and DV downconvert AVI version on the timeline
4. Preview in Best (full) mode

You will see the jaggies already from the downconverted DV source as Vegas upscales it to HDV 1440 x 1080 that are not there in the M2T version. I’ve noticed this in my footage capture with the Sony Z1. I also noticed that de-interlacing made it worse.

I don’t have an HD TV (or monitor) so I’m just watching the SD DVD of my HDV footage on a regular TV. :( But in SD, there are no jaggies and the picture is absolutely gorgeous. :)

I also use the NTSC DVD Widescreen MPEG template. (not sure why you use the regular NTSC DVD template and change it to 16:9?)

~jr
JJKizak wrote on 10/24/2005, 9:25 AM
In V6c that template is not there.

JJK
seanfl wrote on 10/24/2005, 9:32 AM
I do have dvd-a, however I have to hand off the file to someone else that's authoring the dvd, and they've requested an mpg 2 file with audio included.

Anyone know what the difference is between NTSC DVD (with 16:9 selected) and DVD architect stream (with include audio checked?). Will they look the same or somehow the DVD-a template does something nicer?

Maybe you're right on the upscale creating the artifacts. Why do purchased DVD's not have those jaggy artifacts? They've being upscaled just as well, right?

I have not tried progressive. I've just left the template the way it comes, with the exception of taking video quality to best. Is progressive, as opposed to interlaced, the best way to render for a dvd?

thank you! I'm enjoying using Vegas for some dvd projects...I just have some things to learn!

Sean
JohnnyRoy wrote on 10/24/2005, 12:06 PM
> In V6c that template is not there.

Sorry, I mean "DVD Architect NTSC Widescreen video stream" template. (I was doing it from memory)

~jr
JohnnyRoy wrote on 10/24/2005, 12:22 PM
> Anyone know what the difference is between NTSC DVD (with 16:9 selected) and DVD architect stream (with include audio checked?). Will they look the same or somehow the DVD-a template does something nicer?

They are the same once you add audio to the DVDA Wide stream and make the NTSC DVD 16:9. If you want you can just create a new template that is NTSC DVD Widescreen with audio by saving the NTSC DVD template under a new name with 16:9 selected.

> Why do purchased DVD's not have those jaggy artifacts? They've being upscaled just as well, right?

Yes, but they start with much better source. It also depends on the contrast of the footage. I have some HD footage of wild turkeys in my backyard and there are absolutely no jaggies when downconverted SD is upscaled to HD. But the content has hardly any straight contrasting lines (there are just lots of trees and turkeys that all kind of blend in). On some footage its noticeable while others its not.

Also, I was using the Z1 to downconvert directly from the camera. Capturing HDV and downconverting in Vegas yields better results so perhaps it wouldn’t have been that noticeable had I done that (I need to go back and test this).

> Is progressive, as opposed to interlaced, the best way to render for a dvd?

Not unless your footage was shot progressive or you are going for a certain progressive look. Otherwise you can cause other problems when de-interlacing. I was just de-interlacing to prove to myself that the jaggies weren’t interlacing artifacts because I was viewing the footage on a computer monitor (not a TV).

~jr