This post will need to be broken-up due to size:
How did this start?
What are the issues?
Thread, Phase I
Thread, Phase II
What footage are we taking?
Who is the audience and what are their expectations?
What monitoring equipment is being used? Is it calibrated?
Does an all-Adobe workflow really exist?
What should Adobe do?
------------------------------------------------------------------
How did this Start?
Ive been shooting nature and underwater SD for years. Used all-Adobe workflow for output. No problems.
Started shooting HDV to BD with a combo of PP and 3rd party tools, then switched to CS3 and all-Adobe workflow.
Was asked to take some of my HDV footage and push for SD-DVD for distribution the BD was fine, so I figure cake. The raw tape is fine on scope and monitor.
Pushed the footage out and reviewed the SD output on a calibrated scope and monitor.
Houston we have a problem.
HDV ïƒ SD scaled push much worse native HDV
However, I shot identical footage in native SD and the output was much better then the HDV->SD scale/push.
I read all the documentation, on-line White-Paper PDFs, etc. Tried all combo of settings and still no-joy
Called adobe techs they verified my settings, then they went into deny deny deny then the techs claimed it was my footage
So decided to start this thread I figured that someone must know how to do this
I think some summary is needed. I can not be sure, but it appears that 50 or so messages have been deleted from this thread. Unfortunately, some of the experimental data and intermediate workflows appear to me missing. I will not be repeating them here. If they are really gone, then I will attempt to resurrect the best workflows.
--------------------------------------------------------------
What are the Issues?
1) Color Shift: This has been verified using a calibrated scope. On the original tape pushed to a calibrated broadcast output train, the color is perfect scope and monitor. After processing by a PP-only workflow, the color is shifted as verified on a monitor/scope and calibrated output train. The complexities of YUV -> RGB -> YUV color model mapping have been covered in other threads. From my perspective, I got correct color mapping when I shot SD and now I do not, despite verifying broadcast safe output. I recognize that there are differences in the limits for luminance and chrominance and they do not map exactly between D1, HDV and DVD, but these were all verified at a broadcast studio. There are complete articles and threads on these issues.
2) Field/Frame Artifacts: There are obvious interlace artifacts and haloing. The raw HDV tapes were compared to the PP-only workflow using calibrated broadcast equipment. When comparing the PP-only HDV->SD workflow directly to SD-only workflow, there is no comparison. There are threads and technical articles on scaling interlaced footage. The footage must be processed to a full-frame un-compressed format, and then sent through a scalar. There are about a ½ dozen de-interlace algorithms, so your results will vary. Obviously, you must re-interlace if you want to go broadcast. Scaling algorithm: The scaling algorithm used is critical. At this time, I am unaware that Adobe has published its scaling algorithms for PP nor weather it de-interlaces prior to scaling (and if so, how?)
3) Aspect ratio conversion: Objects of known aspect ratio do not appear to be correctly converted upon scaling. This was verified on calibrated broadcast equipment.
------------------------------------------------------------------
HDV-> SD Thread Phase I
A few things should be made clear and may be difficult if the postings in this thread have indeed been deleted: I spent years shooting nearly identical footage in native SD and that output was much better then the HDV->SD scale/push using the all-Adobe workflow. This was using multiple capture devices. The only commonality was the Adobe workflow.
I know a workflow exists I have friends who make documentaries in HDV for PBS, the BBC, the big Screen and broadcast. I have seen the results they are there. So I reached-out. Got access to a broadcast studio and pushed-out an SD through pro equipment. Results were fine all issues resolved. Why cant I get a quality result from an Adobe-based workflow?
Thread Phase I asked several questions:
Why are the issues not discussed in the documentation?
Why does Adobe tech support not recognize, nor admit to issues?
Despite monitoring and editing this thread, Adobe has never published a workflow.
Despite publishing all settings, footage, broadcast equipment used, and that a correct workflow has been published, Adobe employees have claimed that the problem may be challenging footage (i.e. we only can process wedding/corporate events/etc.) and in no way admits to problems with PP.
These questions were never addressed. Full stop.
------------------------------------------------------------------
HDV-> SD Thread Phase II
Several folks stepped to the plate and developed workflows incorporating third party tools. Dan is in many ways the driving force. He has started several threads trying to help the PP community. I have tried his workflow with good results. He is striving to make the 3rd party tools more accessible to the larger PP community. He should be supported.
Unfortunately, the bulk of the information from this point went private e-mail. I received more then 200 e-mails.