HDV editing

Black Lab · Post by **Black Lab** » Tue Jan 05, 2010 8:02 pm

The only HD tutorial I know of was written about 3 years ago by JC Hunter. He is no longer active on this forum and, as you will see, the link to his tutorial is dead.
http://forum.corel.com/EN/viewtopic.php?t=13872

Many on this board do use some variant of HD, including HDV. If you have a particular question it would probably be best to start a new thread on the subject.

Post by **Ken Berry** » Tue Jan 05, 2010 9:19 pm

I would have to agree with John that by and large SD and HD are much the same, and thus the tutorials for the former largely apply to the latter. I moved over to HDV (Canon HV20) nearly two years ago, and haven't looked back. Like you, I now have difficulty looking at my SD productions which, at the time, on my (and family and friends') CRTVs, looked wonderful! But now I am rather depressed that I would like to do them all over again in HD!

However, the only distinctions I have noted in the actual production are not to pan horizontally too quickly or over a wide angle while filming. And, in editing, I tend to disobey my own (and others') advice for SD, and finish my editing and jump straight into the burning module without first producing a new video clip of the edited project.

Frank Burch · Post by **Frank Burch** » Tue Jan 05, 2010 9:42 pm

I always did exactly the same Ken. But Trevor in his tutorial (or is it Jones?) mentions that this is indeed possible, however making a file beforehand is "safer".

Post by **Ken Berry** » Tue Jan 05, 2010 10:02 pm

It was certainly safer with SD video... But I have found that I have more flexibility in setting the output properties myself in the burner, rather than leave myself to the inflexible and relatively limited settings available in the editing module. So that is why I jump straight to the burning module with HDV...

Frank Burch · Post by **Frank Burch** » Tue Jan 05, 2010 10:54 pm

Ken, would you be so kind as to take a look at my thread on interlacing, because nobody seems able to give any reliable answers on the question.

sjj1805 · Post by **sjj1805** » Thu Jan 07, 2010 2:11 am

I have a 40" High Definition TV, one of those 1920¡Ñ1080 jobs, not the inferior 1280x720 ones. I also have Play Station 3 that enables me to play Blue Ray Discs. So I can say that I have experienced HD Television. Whilst I agree that some of the things I have watched in HD are much crisper, sharper and the colours are more deeper, I still maintain that the change from SD to HD is not that big a leap compared to moving from
Black and white TV to Colour
or
From VHS to DVD
or from 405 lines to 625 lines TV.

Unless you happen to be one of those that wants whatever happens to be the latest "thing" (Vista / Windows 7 / A ride in Richard Branson's spaceship) then I would think many people will simply wait until their existing equipment needs to be replaced possibly due to wear and tear.

Going on from that, I tend to find that people in general are more interested in bulk than quality. Take for example
BSB Television -v- Sky Television.
The Squarial was a far more superior but only offered 6 film channels. Sky with its much larger satellite dish and an inferior quality offered 16 channels. Eventually BSB was forced to merge with SKY and became BSKYB.

It has been widely reported that Betamax was a more superior system to VHS but we all know who won that war.

One of my favourite projects was converting my collection of super 8 Cine Films to DVD. Those are treasured memories that I thought were lost forever when the bulb in my Cine Projector gave up the ghost.

Not only myself but dozens of friends, relatives and workmates who bought computers this past couple of years, pre-installed with Vista very quickly converted those new machines to XP.

Even if you do get all that HD equipment - the bulk of stuff being transmitted by television or bought on disc was filmed in SD.
In my view SD is here for a long time to come.

Frank Burch · Post by **Frank Burch** » Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:41 am

Steve, that depends where you live. My relatives in Australia tell me everything is in HD now. Here in France analogic TV will soon be discontinued and most people are buying HD sets. If fact you would be hard put to find a set that is not HD in the shops. We have a similar 40" full HD Sony Bravia. Our old Philips was very good but we appreciate the bigger screen. I hook up my Canon HV 20 with a HDMI cable and the image quality is remarkably better than I used to get with SD DVD's. But it's all very personal I suppose.

skier-hughes · Post by **skier-hughes** » Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:51 am

Frank Burch wrote:Steve, that depends where you live. My relatives in Australia tell me everything is in HD now. Here in France analogic TV will soon be discontinued and most people are buying HD sets. If fact you would be hard put to find a set that is not HD in the shops.

I don't know about Australia, but the removal of the analogue signal in France or UK does not mean we get everything in HD, it just means the SD signal is now digital.

I would disagree with Steve on HD quality though. TV HD signals are poor on the whole, but a good bluray movie on a good tv is cracking.

erdna · Post by **erdna** » Thu Jan 07, 2010 10:24 am

Same HD low quality story on the Belgian cable (Telenet) networks. They want (moneymoney)the quantity (40 analog channels and over 300 digital channels with some in "HD"). They have to limit the mpeg4 bitstreams to ~4mb/s

Post by **Ron P.** » Thu Jan 07, 2010 1:21 pm

Here in the states, everything went digital last May or June. All broadcast stations, that were using the old analog "off-air" signal were required (read that as forced by the FCC) to stop analog broadcasts. They now broadcast off-air digital signals. Some network stations (CBS, NBC...) made the decision while having to upgrade their systems, to include HD, other smaller networks can not afford to, so still are broadcasting SD.

The satellite providers, DirecTV, and Dish use a SD digital signal as they have done for years. I've been using DirecTV, before it existed. It's predecessor was PrimeStar. Before they came into the picture, I was using a huge 6 foot satellite system. It had the motorized means of moving the dish across the horizon to different satellites. I think these old systems did not have the digital capability. PrimeStar quickly replaced them, as they were very small, and provided the new digital signals. They (PrimeStar, DirecTV, and Dish) have always broadcast SD digitally. However to get the new HD signal, I would need to upgrade my receiver, which of course is not cheap.

In rural areas you have 2 options, use a satellite service, or an aerial (antenna). In most towns and cities a third option of cable TV is available. However with cable or satellite services HD remains optional to SD, so they have another way to charge more $$$.

mitchell65 · Post by **mitchell65** » Thu Jan 07, 2010 1:48 pm

Ron wrote:I was using a huge 6 foot satellite system. It had the motorized means of moving the dish across the horizon to different satellites

We've got one of those here in the UK. It's called Jodrell Bank

Black Lab · Post by **Black Lab** » Thu Jan 07, 2010 2:25 pm

According to the following article, only 20% of households across the U.S. have HD TVs, while only 14% are actually viewing HD programming. I'm sure even fewer have BluRay players.
http://broadcastengineering.com/hdtv/ca ... tv_owners/

Post by **Ron P.** » Thu Jan 07, 2010 3:40 pm

Hey, I have noticed that you can pick up a Blu-Ray player for around $200, which is over $1k less expensive from about this time last year.

mitchell65 · Post by **mitchell65** » Thu Jan 07, 2010 4:41 pm

I've just bought a Phillips BluRay Player for just under the equivilent of 160 US dollars (That's 99 UKpounds and there are loads on the market here for about that sum.)

sjj1805 · Post by **sjj1805** » Fri Jan 08, 2010 12:43 am

Frank Burch wrote:Steve, that depends where you live. My relatives in Australia tell me everything is in HD now. Here in France analogic TV will soon be discontinued and most people are buying HD sets. If fact you would be hard put to find a set that is not HD in the shops. We have a similar 40" full HD Sony Bravia. Our old Philips was very good but we appreciate the bigger screen. I hook up my Canon HV 20 with a HDMI cable and the image quality is remarkably better than I used to get with SD DVD's. But it's all very personal I suppose.

I think you are misinterpreting a few things. Digital Television is not High Definition Television. It can be HD but currently most of it is SD. Digital Television does of course produce a better picture - for starters there is no ghosting from a slightly misaligned TV aerial. Next thing about digital is that several more TV channels are available.

Regarding HD television sets. Buying a large screen television does not mean that you have got HD. As I stated earlier I have a 40" TV HD ready of 1920¡Ñ1080 displays. In fact TWO of my computer monitors happen to be 32" HD ready TV sets.

Having a HDTV ready TV set does not mean you are watching HD. To do so you either need to be connected to a HDTV broadcast system such as a satellite TV channel that is being broadcast in HD - and for which you have to pay an extra monthly fee over and above your existing satellite TV reception plus an HD satellite receiver, or from FreeSat, or via your cable company - again with a HD reception box then of course there is the possibility of using Blue Ray Discs.

Regarding the comments by Graham about the quality of HD - I don't argue about that, in fact you have confirmed what I was saying but probably didn't get my point across clearly enough

TV HD signals are poor on the whole, but a good blue ray movie on a good tv is cracking.

When my 3 sons all tried to persuade me to get a bigger TV screen than my then 32" TV (Now a computer monitor) they kept trying to show me TV broadcasts in HD I could not see the difference. Perhaps my eyes are getting old but they were all insistent it was better. It was only when I saw a Blue Ray disc of "Take That" doing Circus Live at London's Wembley Stadium that I could truthfully say I saw a difference.