Re: [Frameworks] combining SD and HD

From: D Dawson <>
Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2011 21:48:02 -0500

I would have to agree that although it would be preferable for all SD
footage to remain in SD throughout the ages, and never require upREZing, it
just simply isn't really a part of a filmmaker's workflow these days.

There are so many filmmakers shooting on SD or HD, or 4K or 16mm or Super8
or 35mm and needing to combine the footage together. So what do you do? Do
you go to the lowest common denominator for Telecine, like SD, just because
you have some old miniDV tapes you need to incorporate or do you upREZ
everything to 4K because you shot some fotoage on the RED?

Clearly there is no absolute answer. The most economical and practical is
somewhere in the middle. Most festivals screen SD and many now screen HD.
For those festivals you want at least an HD master, which you can
downconvert to SD for other festivals. Obviously if you are doing a 4K or
2K output there are few festivals with Christie projections that will really
take advantage of that as a projection format... So you are back to HD
again, the sort of "common" standard these days.

In addition most home editing platforms will cut HD footage no problem,
again being economical and practical. HDV camera camera footage can be
converted to 1080p, same with most DSLR footage... Not to mention EXCam --
or whatever else you can get your hands on, and 2K transfers are not as
common as HD telecines, so much film footage is coming in on HD.

So really, it now comes down to, what do I do with this SD footage I need to
incorporate into this HD timeline? That is why so many people are dealing
with the question of UpREZing... They literally have footage they need to
upREZ for MANY reasons. And many of these people are looking for answers
and although some things will be compromised, the compromise is worth it, as
I need SD footage in my HD project... !

To blatantly proclaim, "Don't do it" is besides the point, people are saying
"I am doing it" now who has suggestions on how I can ensure (although with
compromises) the best looking image -- not the same looking image, not an
image that looks better, but the best possible looking image given the

I think those people are also saying, I have my own reasons for upREZing the
footage, and my decision is not based on a lack of technical fundamentals,
but on workflow and unrelated requirements (perhaps a broadcast license?)

Now of course if this is only about producing a Blu-Ray for exhibition we
have discussed many methods for keeping footage in its native resolution,
but of course if the Blu-Ray player is upREZing the footage itself to 1080p
because the projector is pushing out 1080p, why not use software you can
control in the first place to perform the upREZ with some technical know how
and have a new HD file you can use for future screenings?

The reality is that we now live in an SD and HD world, both with TVs,
Projectors and Cameras. Many people have many different reasons for doing
what they do, and on a situation by situation basis they are looking for


On 6/4/11 8:32 PM, "David Tetzlaff" <> wrote:

>> David you are correct but please calm down
> I am calm. I was 'woofing.'
>> no need to be nasty
> I'm sorry, Bart, but Mr. Ross was clearly referring to my posts on up-rezing
> in his opening remark. This is a snide, back-handed dig, pompous and
> condescending in faux-coyly not even addressing me. Not to mention wrong. The
> nasty started with the 'Sadly', and I at least had the decency to be specific
> and direct in my complaint. To Mr. Ross's face, as it were, rather than behind
> his back.
> Now, I'm guessing that Mr. Ross's first sentence is badly composed, (the
> "basic principles of digital art" are aesthetic and do not necessarily call
> for technical understanding)... and he actually means to say something like
> "Posts to this list often display a notable lack of fundamental knowledge of
> digital media technology..." If so, I would actually agree with him, that this
> is both true, and in many ways lamentable.
> There's certainly a marked contrast between the noob level of queries about
> digital tools that appear here, and the expertise evidenced in discussions of
> photochemical film technologies - e.g. films stocks, processing and so on.
> I've answered a number of questions here that make me wonder if some list
> members know how to use The Google, and perhaps Mr. Ross and I have even
> shared similar exasperations. I do give a little interior sigh every time I
> read another post from someone who doesn't understand the difference between a
> codec and a container...
> But, better to light a candle than curse the darkness, I try to be helpful,
> since I did figure out a lot of this stuff the hard way, and there's no need
> for everyone to re-invent the wheel.
> And, to be fair, digital knowledge is a constantly moving target, and it IS
> very complicated. Furthermore, a lot of it is NOT that accessible, and not
> that user-friendly once you do find a resource. For example, there are no
> doubt people on this list distributing work on the web or as media files who
> have no idea what H264 is in general, even though they're using it, not to
> mention that there are different implementations of H264 encoding employed by
> different software manufacturers, that some are better than others, that the
> current state-of-the-art in affordable H264 software encoding is a variant
> called x264, or where to find a version of same that can be used with a Mac.
> That's a lot of stuff to know, some of it buried pretty deep in geekland, and
> that's only one little piece of the overall puzzle of making work and getting
> it out.
> So it's actually pretty easy for people who DO know a lot to get a piece of it
> wrong, or to be holding concepts that became obsolete last week. So there's
> very justification for getting overly snippy or judgmental about specific
> knowledge gaps or fauxs pas. And it's a good idea to include a certain number
> of AFAIK-type qualifiers rather then pontificating, being as specific as
> possible rather than making sweeping categorical statements like "resampling
> resolutions is a really bad idea. You'll get fuzzy, crappy video."
> Mr. Ross thinks he knows enough to make definitive pronouncements about how
> digital technology works. ("Don't do it.") Since he happens to be wrong by
> being so categorical, and since he sounds authoritative, he makes matters
> worse. We don't need that.
> Here is a valid imperative utterance regarding the issue Mr. Ross sought to
> address: "Be careful when planning on 'up-rezing' (resampling resolutions).
> Quite a few factors influence the quality of the results, but in many cases,
> the result will be fuzzy, crappy video."
> But clearly Mr. Ross has come into this playground with an attitude, and with
> cracks like "if you're stuck on the Mac platform" (absent any qualifying
> emoticons) he's provoking conflict. He asked for it. He got it.
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list

FrameWorks mailing list
Received on Sat Jun 04 2011 - 19:48:12 CDT