Project Settings Question

[rsn108]

Something I never noticed before is that when I set up a new project, the default rendering format is Canopus HQ. This is fine for a HD project, but my question is, in a SD project would it be better to make the rendering format DV AVI?

Or does it not make a difference?

[Bluetongue]

YEP
DV AVI is the order of the day for SD.
The greatest thing about EDIUS is that when you want to go HD the process should be painless
Regards Barry

[antonsvideo]

I use HQ as the rendering format for SD, it is larger file size than DV but far better render quality

in fact, HQ is perfect for anything EDIUS, HD or SD

[Bluetongue]

in fact, HQ is perfect for anything EDIUS, HD or SD

Thats good to Know, never thought of trying it
Regards Barry

[antonsvideo]

try it, you will be impressed (especially when using rich colour) (color for USA)

[GrassValley_MD]

I use HQ as the rendering format for SD, it is larger file size than DV but far better render quality

in fact, HQ is perfect for anything EDIUS, HD or SD

This is very true... I have been using HQ for SD since it could support it!

Not only that but it has Alpha support so you can save a Alpha Channel with it:)


Mike

[virgil21]

I use HQ as the rendering format for SD...

I wonder am I mis-understanding something here?

When I finally come to make a DVD, I delete all the render files and get Procoder (Express) to output and render afresh. That output has to be MPEG for DVD so I assume that rendering SD footage using Canopus HQ is irrelevant in that case.

However, would it be worthwhile to render with Canopus HQ and not delete the files but let Procoder convert from the HQ rendered files to MPEG?

[STORMDAVE]

I also use Canopus HQ even on DV projects. If you re-render a specific area (which I rarely do) Canopus HQ keeps the quality fresh and it doesn't have to re-render to DV again, which is considered a generational loss.

If you delete your render files, then go to MPEG2, then you're not losing anything. Rendering an area on the timeline just lets you play that area, if your computer can't handle it. You don't have to delete the rendered files, if you use Canopus HQ. The quality is pretty high, and it is only a little big bigger in side than DV.

[plekkie]

There is another reason to use Canopus HQ and HD settings, even when exporting to SD for DVD. Try by creating the same title (use plain text) with QuickTitler in two different project settings, for example Full HD (1920x1080) and SD (720x576 or 720x480), and export each to SD with DVD settings. Take a frame grab from the resulting video and you will notice the difference.

NB: QuickTitler automatically shows you the resolution it is working in, based on the project settings.

[virgil21]

Rendering an area on the timeline just lets you play that area, if your computer can't handle it. You don't have to delete the rendered files, if you use Canopus HQ.

OK, I have rendered using HQ and it does look better on the output monitor. But that's only playback to achieve RT output, as you say.

But the answer still remains unclear to me.

If I am now rendering the timeline in HQ, when it comes to coding for the DVD, does Procoder Express render from the HQ files (if undeleted) or from the timeline afresh, that is from the original captured DV encoded files?

If it is the latter, then using HQ only provides a "prettier" monitoring output - which in fact could be misleading. Anyway, at that stage only a test DVD will provide the "true" answer.

Still, I like to be as aware as possible about what's going on at each stage of the workflow and it would be nice to think/know that rendering to HQ will provide a better quality final output.

[antonsvideo]

lets make it clear to understand

to avoid quality loss for DVD, export timeline to a new HQ file and then use ProCoder in standalone mode (faster than export from timeline)

to avoid quality loss for renders, use HQ as rendering format

to see what I am talking about, try this test:

place this file on timeline and make it a few seconds

http://www.videoproductions.com.au/edius45/HQ-DV-test.tga

(I made this image to provide a stark contrast and diagonal lines, a great test for any codec)

export to DV AVI and then look at the bad quality now

export to HQ and then look at the excellent quality, the same as the original

NOW, tell me you use HQ from now on :)

[rsn108]

Just to get it straight, Anton, are you talking about a project which has actually been shot in DV, or a project that has been shot in HDV? I mean are you outputting a 720x576 timeline at 1440x1080 and then converting it back in Procoder 3 to 720x576 MPEG2 for DVD? Or was your material 1440x1080 to start off with?

[antonsvideo]

Just to get it straight, Anton, are you talking about a project which has actually been shot in DV, or a project that has been shot in HDV? I mean are you outputting a 720x576 timeline at 1440x1080 and then converting it back in Procoder 3 to 720x576 MPEG2 for DVD? Or was your material 1440x1080 to start off with?

shot in DVCAM or DV at 720x576 Pal output to 720x576 HQ and then encoded

the HQ codec can be used for standard def and high def, it is just a better codec than DV

[virgil21]

...NOW, tell me you use HQ from now on :)

I've done the test,
And I agree with you,
I'll always render
Using codec HQ!