Is blu-ray really necessary?

[HankCastello]

We're just now producing our first hi-def wedding videos and frankly, I'm disappointed - sort of.  Watching tv, there's a huge difference between channels in standard def and those in hi-def, so I expected a similar difference with my discs.

First, I burned a standard widescreen DVD and watched it in one of those players that upconvert to hi-def.  The video was super.  Then I anxiously burned a blu-ray disc and watched, expecting noticable difference.  I didn't see any. 

We had to strain our eyeballs and concentrate on little things like eyelashes, etc. and switch back and forth between the two videos to try and ascertain some difference.  There was very little.

The video was shot on native 16:9 CCDs, which make a huge difference when compared to widescreen shot on 4:3 native CCDs.  Furthermore, we captured and edited in hdv (not sure if that makes a difference, I'll have to do some testing).

Now, I suppose if we shot at test screens and compared, it would be easier to tell which was standard upconvert and which was real hi-def, but we aren't paid to shoot test screens.

So I guess the question comes down to, why should a client pay extra money for Blu-ray when standard widescreen shot with native 16:9 CCDs gives nearly the same quality?   And you might even wonder why you should bother with expensive Blu-ray burners and discs.

Has your experience been different?

[ampsonic]

Standard dvd's played with a proper upconverting dvd player look very nice. It's nowhere near the difference of standard tv to HD tv.

[Superfly]

Hey Hank,

Was it an indoor wedding?  I certainly see very little benefit to HDV when shooting in low light but in daylight through my 47" Sony Bravia via HDMI it's striking.

I guess the question becomes .....after rendering, converting, etc., etc., can you see a difference? 

Did we convert just right?  I frankly struggle with all the freaking choices in Premiere now.....I have to research.

Did it burn right?  What program did you use?  Encore?  Architect?

I recently noticed that nobody ever sends indoor wedding demos out....competitors....   Why would you?  Looks like hell compared to bright light.

Love to hear how your next one goes.  Preparing to deliver in Blue Ray as contractually obligated a year ago.....seemed so far away at the time.

Best,

todd

[HankCastello]

Good points!

It WAS an indoor wedding, but for the most part, the lighting was pretty decent - lots of outdoor windows.

I used the best default settings for all renderings in Premiere Pro and burned with Encore.  Haven't had time to play with settings yet, but will need to look into that.  I suspect that shooting in hd may make for better dv.  Also, I think when you have a lot of motion in your shots, it makes it harder to see a difference.

The best shots for seeing a difference between hdv and dv in this case, were closeups of the bride.  Slightly more detail in eyelashes and retina detail, but only slightly.  You wouldn't notice if you weren't looking diligently for it.

[kwshaw1]

There are several potential factors at work here:

• The quality of the HD cameras and recording format
• The quality of the rendering output from your editing program
• The size and resolution of the display (1080p vs 720p) and
• The distance you sit from the TV plus other viewing factors

A well-made SD DVD viewed via a good connection on a "typical" HDTV may be good enough for many viewers, but with Blu-ray now readily available why not deliver that level of quality for posterity? Suppose 20 years from now someone watches an SD wedding video on a wall-sized display and starts to notice how fuzzy it looks; at that point it would be a little late for them to come back and request a Blu-ray copy. So no, Blu-ray isn't "necessary" and challenges us to deliver content which lives up to the capabilities of the format - but that's a good change from having to squeeze every last bit of quality out of a standard DVD.

Also note that the Sony FX1 you're using doesn't maximize the capabilities of the HD format, and you might see more difference with a camera like the EX1. This is where we start to realize the limitations of a $3000 HDV camera to deliver full HD quality, something we didn't have to worry about much with SD DVDs.

[kwshaw1]

P.S. My mistake, it looks you're shooting with the Canon XH-A1 rather than the Sony FX1. Either way we can question whether a $3000 video camera will deliver HD sufficient to max out the quality potential of a Blu-ray disc, but the XH-A1 should come closer than the FX1.

[HankCastello]

Yes, I used Canon H1a and A1.  We also used an FX1 but it was the static cam in the back and we're not looking so critically at its shots.

I used the highest default settings for rendering 1080i in CS4 PP and burning with Encore.

Currently corporate shoots are booming and being a new landlord, I'm also having to learn how to wear a handyman's tool belt, so not much time to tinker with settings yet, but I am anxious to do so.

Thanks all for the insightful comments!

[Superfly]

A couple other thoughts Hank. 

1.  Did you view this on the Vizio which may or may not be 1080p?

2.  Also, try dumping to a default 1080 uncompressed file to DVD Architect and I suspect you may get much better results.  I'm not good with Encore yet but the results my associate gets are garbage compared to my Sony Architect DVDs where I just dump to plain old widescreen DV and let Architect optimize it and do the conversion.

3.  I only notice a BIG difference in really bright light with these HDV cams.  ***I saw a BlueRAy disk of X-Men 2 a while back and it's looks ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE.....  Got a quarter billion dollars anyone?

Good luck....I'll be there soon and I too am curious.

Blue Ray sure is coming on like a freight snail.

Todd

[HankCastello]

I have two hd screens, one in my editing room and one in our family room, but the Vizio is 1080.  Haven't noticed any difference.  I don't think Encore is doing any encoding with the MPEG2-Blu-ray file that PP makes, so I can't blame Encore, and I would think the stink would be all over the Net if CS4 had crappy Blu-ray encoding (or maybe not?).

[Superfly]

Probably HDV.

Noah... over at the COW in the Panny forum warned me to watch for future Panny offerings (must have known about the new AVCHD) and told me that Panny would not offer HDV because the quality is just too poor.

Once again, Panny leading the way I'm afraid.  Regardless....I think I will be backing up to HDV tape for years to come as I don't believe in any other form of backup.

Hank, thanks for this because I don't want to sell people on re-edits only to have them be disappointed.

Todd

[kwshaw1]

Noah... over at the COW in the Panny forum warned me to watch for future Panny offerings (must have known about the new AVCHD) and told me that Panny would not offer HDV because the quality is just too poor.

HDV is fine for many purposes and AVCHD probably won't surpass it in terms of the issue Hank raised here, especially coming from Panasonic cameras with low-resolution sensors. The Canon XH-A1 should yield images which are noticeably better than SD when viewed on a good HDTV, so if that's not happening I'd suspect some weakness in the final output encoding. You might try adding a little sharpening to the final footage to see if that makes a difference, and check the sharpness recording settings on the cameras.

[Superfly]

NOTICE:  The sad face for Noah    over at the Cow was a complete accident and I should be perfectly clear that he has helped me to no end back when I got my Panasonic DVX-100 camcorder.

That guy is a real resource to Panny users.

I have a Blue Ray Burner on the way....Pioneer 203 I believe.  Too bad nobody has Blue Ray players but I will never edit in DV again.  I just can't look at it on my flat panel.  It's hideous and it hurts me to look at the weddings I just edited in DV.  I will have to re-edit ....should have been editing in HDV so I could offer $500 Blue Ray upgrades (I will going forward) for all video.

A whole new revenue stream once I send samples.

Best,

Todd

[kwshaw1]

Too bad nobody has Blue Ray players...

There are currently several million households in the US with the ability to play Blu-ray discs, and in California they're becoming almost commonplace. Patience, grasshopper...

 

[kwshaw1]

I used the best default settings for all renderings in Premiere Pro and burned with Encore.  Haven't had time to play with settings yet, but will need to look into that. 

I'm doing a Blu-ray disc now and had to tweak several different items to force Adobe Encore to use the output settings I wanted. I can't list all the details right now because Encore is busy rendering, but I had to create a transcode setting with a bit rate of 25 Mbps (to match the source footage quality) and then make sure each clip on the Encore timeline was using this output option. Once I did this the project size jumped from ~8 GB to over 15 GB, which essentially means I doubled the quality compared to the Encore defaults. I don't know if this would help Hank produce a more visibly desirable Blu-ray disc, but it's worth a try.

[HankCastello]

Thanks for the info!

I had PP create an mpeg2 for dvd, so Encore shouldn't have had any encoding to do.  But I'll check it out.