Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

sigamy

macrumors 65816
Mar 7, 2003
1,392
181
NJ USA
killuminati said:
When i first started iMovie I was excited to see what new effects transitions and titles there would be. To my dismay there were hardly any :eek: ! There were two new transitions but no new effects or titles! I am very dissapointed :(

I agree, but I also understand the value we are getting from iMovie and the whole iLife package.

I was really hoping that Apple was going to release a consumer level special FX package, like AlamDV or Virtix Arsenal. They could do packages like they do the Jampacks for GB. That way you only have to buy what you want. I purchased Virtix Arsenal and it is great for doing small lightsaber duels with my son but I was hoping that Apple would take home movie making to the next level. I'm also hoping for a second video track and 5.1 output in iDVD. I know, those are pro features right? Well, how many people have a 5.1 receiver vs. how many have an HD cam?
 

freiheit

macrumors 6502a
Jul 20, 2004
643
90
California
redAPPLE said:
this defeats the purpose of iMovie HD. iMovie IS a consumer program, right? :confused:

Well consumer and prosumer. Any first time independent (or student) filmmaker might spend $1000-2000 on an HD cam and be quite happy using iMovie 5 to do the editing.
 

Rod Rod

macrumors 68020
Sep 21, 2003
2,180
6
Las Vegas, NV
redAPPLE said:
this defeats the purpose of iMovie HD. iMovie IS a consumer program, right? :confused:
When iMovie 1.0 came out, way back before OS X, DV camcorders were out of the reach of most consumers. iMovie HD is similarly ahead of the curve. It won't be too long (a year at most) before HDV camcorders are available which cost around $1000 or less.
 

LethalWolfe

macrumors G3
Jan 11, 2002
9,370
124
Los Angeles
freiheit said:
Well consumer and prosumer. Any first time independent (or student) filmmaker might spend $1000-2000 on an HD cam and be quite happy using iMovie 5 to do the editing.

Change the "1" to a "5" and the "2" to a "6" and you'll be in the ballpark for an HDV camera. Start adding zero's and you'll be in the ballpark for a HD camera. ;)


Lethal
 

LethalWolfe

macrumors G3
Jan 11, 2002
9,370
124
Los Angeles
Rod Rod said:
It's alright to use the terms "HD" and "HDV" interchangeably.

All HDV is HD, but not all HD is HDV. ;)

I should have been more specific in my first post and said HDCAM/DVCProHD instead of just "HD" but I was just too lazy. :D


Lethal
 

MyLeftNut

macrumors regular
Dec 15, 2002
191
0
Melbourne, Australia
Sorry to hijack the thread. Has anyone had problems with importing footage into iMovie5? I find thet it is jerky on playback. Is the encoding normally like this? Is this what FCP is for then?
 

Rod Rod

macrumors 68020
Sep 21, 2003
2,180
6
Las Vegas, NV
MyLeftNut said:
Sorry to hijack the thread. Has anyone had problems with importing footage into iMovie5? I find thet it is jerky on playback. Is the encoding normally like this? Is this what FCP is for then?
That's not enough information for anyone to give meaningful advice. What codec (format) is your project? From what type of camera or deck are you importing your footage? What are your system specs?
 

Rod Rod

macrumors 68020
Sep 21, 2003
2,180
6
Las Vegas, NV
LethalWolfe said:
I should have been more specific in my first post and said HDCAM/DVCProHD instead of just "HD" but I was just too lazy.
I picked up the HD100 the other day (the upcoming $6000 JVC ProHD camera) and saw demo footage shot on it and I was very impressed. Of course the $100K + cameras are still better but the HD100 is just amazing for the price.
 

LethalWolfe

macrumors G3
Jan 11, 2002
9,370
124
Los Angeles
Rod Rod said:
I picked up the HD100 the other day (the upcoming $6000 JVC ProHD camera) and saw demo footage shot on it and I was very impressed. Of course the $100K + cameras are still better but the HD100 is just amazing for the price.

I haven't seen the HD100 footage, but the place I work at right now has 3 of the Sony HDV cameras. The footage looks very nice on shots with little/no movement, but if there is a lot of movement going on things start to stutter too much IMO (and I really don't like the "cineframe" mode). Because of how compressed the signal is I'm not sure how good it will hold up in post (if you need to lots of FX and the like), and the LGOP compression just doesn't sound like fun to deal w/in the edit bay.

I think the gap between HDV and hi-end HD is wider than the gap between DV and hi-end SD. I just think there were too many compromises made to get an HD signal crammed onto DV hardware in order to save some $$$.

It will be interesting to see how long of legs HDV has. In, let's say, 3-5 years when the cost of P2 media has gone down and capacity has gone up why would you choose to shoot HDV when you could shoot a much higher quality format (DVCProHD) for not too much more money?


Lethal
 

Rod Rod

macrumors 68020
Sep 21, 2003
2,180
6
Las Vegas, NV
LethalWolfe said:
I think the gap between HDV and hi-end HD is wider than the gap between DV and hi-end SD. I just think there were too many compromises made to get an HD signal crammed onto DV hardware in order to save some $$$.

It will be interesting to see how long of legs HDV has. In, let's say, 3-5 years when the cost of P2 media has gone down and capacity has gone up why would you choose to shoot HDV when you could shoot a much higher quality format (DVCProHD) for not too much more money?
DVCProHD is nice but along with its benefits there are drawbacks, the main one being its resolution compromise compared to other HD formats. The other one (that I can think of right now) is that it looks like DV, and in fact is more highly compressed than DV (~9:1 compared to DV's ~5:1.)

Color-sampling-wise, I can see shooting 4:2:0 ProHD and transcoding to another codec for effects shots (only when necessary, of course). Also, within the same 3-5 years that P2 media drops in price, it's entirely possible that 50mbps ProHD (an evolution of HDV for anyone who doesn't know what I'm talking about) will do 4:2:2.

A good reason to shoot to tape compared to flash media or hard drive is instant, low cost archiving. Hard drives do go bad and flash media (as far as I know) has a physical limit on read/write cycles. The reasons to shoot to flash media or hard drive are obviously time saving, convenience and security from tape dropouts. I'll probably be shooting simultaneously to both (as timecode on both should match) one of these days.
 

LethalWolfe

macrumors G3
Jan 11, 2002
9,370
124
Los Angeles
Rod Rod said:
DVCProHD is nice but along with its benefits there are drawbacks, the main one being its resolution compromise compared to other HD formats. The other one (that I can think of right now) is that it looks like DV, and in fact is more highly compressed than DV (~9:1 compared to DV's ~5:1.)

And the compression of HDV (both in amount and in type) is way, way worse than DVCProHD.

Comparing compression on an SD signal to that on an HD signal is not apples to apples.


A good reason to shoot to tape compared to flash media or hard drive is instant, low cost archiving. Hard drives do go bad and flash media (as far as I know) has a physical limit on read/write cycles. The reasons to shoot to flash media or hard drive are obviously time saving, convenience and security from tape dropouts. I'll probably be shooting simultaneously to both (as timecode on both should match) one of these days.

Going tapeless definetly requires a different workflow, and being able to record to tape and solid state at the same time would be the best of both worlds. As far as archiving goes I clone all my source tapes before I start post so having to go from P2 to tape won't be an extra step for me.


Lethal
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.