Export to 1080 HD from Imovie 09

Disappointingly true.

Do a search for "Steve Mullens" if you want to read more on it as he has posted lots of observations on this.

true.

you CAN export in 1080i
but internally, the video was downsampled to 960c540p ..
so, exporting in a higher res doesn't add any value..

record/import in 720p => you get 720p..

Karsten's correct -- the path where the output and input remain the same is to use a progressive format, either 720p30 or TRUE 1080p30.

With a bit of understanding, 720p60 or TRUE 1080p60 can also be used.

Apple has made the decision that iMovie 09 can't have full FX functionality with interlace HD just as it made the earlier decision that DV must lose a field of each frame so DV becomes progressive.

The technical answer is that any FX that causes video to be changed in size must -- in iM 09 -- be performed on progressive video HENCE 1920x1080 is chopped to 960x540. Then, to keep the FXed video from standing out -- ALL video is chopped to 540p.

To make the SPEED FX work easier, using it also causes the chop.

What I don't understand why STATIC Backgrounds also cause the chop. Perhaps the programmers were too lazy to differentate between static and motion Backgrounds.

The plain fact is that there's no reason many (if not most) of these FX can and are (with other editors) performed in real-time. Moreover, FX such as speed change have historically used FIELDS to make the motion look smoother. Yes, it simpler to force progressive, but that's not a very good excuse.

The other issue is HOW interlace video is "deinterlaced" to progressive. Discarding a DV field and chopping are the most crude way of doing it. Had a BLEND operation been used, the results would at least have looked better.

HOWEVER, unless you have a very good HDTV or a very large screen -- you may not really see much difference.

PS1: what would help is if camcorders that shoot at 1080p30 would either not record as 1080i60 or a utility were written that would take an iM Event of 1080p30/60i and tag the video as being progressive rather than interlace.

PS2: By the way, you CAN use ALL FX and keep 1920x1080 IF you do not upgrade from version 8.0.0. Of course, some FX may result in crappy looking video from scaling artifacts.

Hi Steve:
This thread really places everything in the right perspective. When I upgraded to IMovie 8.o3 and bought your book for IMovie 9 and though I had it made, My new shiny Canon HF-S10 shooting at 1080p 30 at 24Mps would give me the quality I was looking for. Well it did not last too long, after learning that the Canon is not a true progressive at 30 but rather a 1080i "wrapped" in a make believe 60i.
Then the disappointment when Steve announced that the video chop that occurs if you don't import true progressive and use the various special FX.

In spite of these shortcomings I started to do testing with the WDMP that Steve provided as an alternative to view your work rather that to burn DVD with the subsequent and definite drop in quality expected of the 720x420 format. I imported using the Full and Large options from the camcorder, edited the different projects on iMovie 9 ver. 8.04 using all kind of Fx imaginable including stabilization, then I exported using QT with H264 best quality and size (upper) 1920x1080p HD and (upper) 1280x720p HD. copied the different QT mov files to USB
thumbdrives and played them on the WDMP via HDMI to a Samsung 56inch LED DPL that is capable of 1080p, and unless I am starting to go blind and don't know it yet, I could not see any major or overwhelming drop in quality.

Very puzzling but I've done multiple tests even using the same footage with FX and no FX with large and full imports and my conclusions are the same.
I don't get too technical with resolution charts or similar of the sorts but what is definitely for sure is that using the WDMP my movies are viewed 100x better that burning to DVD, it is like having a Blue Ray player for the Mac.

Thanks, Your input is appreciated.
Marvelou.

"what is definitely for sure is that using the WDMP my movies are viewed 100x better that burning to DVD, it is like having a Blue Ray player for the Mac."

I feel the WDMP is better than BD because you can export directly from iMovie to a thumbdrive. (No generation loss going through AIC.) And, I love that from camera to WDMP, everything is solid-state.

One thing that puzzles me is are you saying you don't notice ANY difference between 720p and 1080-line movies?

You could be correct, because once your 1080i video is chopped to 960x540, it really doesn't make much difference if the final movie is 720p or 1080p.

However, I would expect that if you add NO FX -- the 1080i movie you make should be higher rez. Of course, that assumes consumer camcorders really record a lot more than 960x540. 🙂

My bottom-line is that you have two REAL choices: a 720p60/720p30 camera or a 1080i60 camera whose video is chopped to 540p30 by iMovie. The 720p60 camera will have greater resolution and better motion.

Unfortunately, 1080i camcorders are the only consumer camcorders available so that leaves iMovie users with a less than perfect solution. But, in reality, if you export to a WDMP a 1080p (up-scaled from 540p) or 1080p (up-scaled from 540p) to a red-laser DVD using Toast -- the results can be very very good.

However, I still see traces of artifacts resulting from the CHOP to 540p which is why I'm using 720p30. I don't like the stroby motion on fast movement, but I'll live with it until I can buy a 720p60 camera.

Moreover, 720p30 goes perfectly to the Internet.

PS1: I really don't find the MPEG-2 created by iDVD to be very good. The key to being happy with iDVD movies is to remember than NTSC was never intended to be viewed on a TV bigger than 27-inches.

PS2: The other important thing to remember is that as you found -- one can great looking results by following the correct path. Results that have none of the crap that many seem to be getting. Clearly, NOT doing things the way Apple seems to want one to export helps a lot. But, I honestly don't know how people can get the horrible quality they way too often report. And, with hi-rez photos the results are spectacular!

PS3: I'm now recommending using Photo-JPEG (at 75% Quality) rather than Motion-JPEG when converting DV to progressive.

Marvelou wrote:
.. I imported using the Full and Large options from the camcorder, edited the different projects on iMovie 9 ver. 8.04 using all kind of Fx imaginable including stabilization, then I exported using QT with H264 best quality and size (upper) 1920x1080p HD and (upper) 1280x720p HD. copied the different QT mov files to USB thumbdrives and played them on the WDMP via HDMI to a Samsung 56inch LED DPL that is capable of 1080p, and unless I am starting to go blind and don't know it yet, I could not see any major or overwhelming drop in quality...

no, there IS no difference, as I told you:

the moment you add +all kind of Fx imaginable including stabilization+ ANY import is handled 960x540p .. or, in other words:
_if you plan to use complex effects = no need to import Full._
(ok, for storage reasons.. but you should archive the 'raws' anyhow..)

and exporting a 960x540p video as 720p, 1080i, 1080p, .. doesn't add any value.. it is still a (blown-up) '540p'.

thanks for confirming my 'theoretical' tests.. (I'm using some 'test-charts' only, due to lack of some formats....) 😀

Steve Mullen wrote:

PS3: I'm now recommending using Photo-JPEG (at 75% Quality) rather than Motion-JPEG when converting DV to progressive.

Steve,

What has brought you to this conclusion? Just curious as I have your book and was wondering what new developments there are. Also, do you plan on providing perhaps an addendum of updates for the book to consolidate the latest and greatest?

Al_M wrote:

.. Photo-JPEG (at 75% Quality)

What has brought you to this conclusion?

for years, P-jpeg/75% has a real .. mystical reputation.. here's some technical explanation:
http://codecs.onerivermedia.com/ (tab 4.2.2c)

*Photo JPEG @ 75% Quality*
PhotoJPEG at its highest 100% quality setting is actually a 4:4:4 codec. When reduced down to 75%, it switches to 4:2:2 to help with the compression scheme. .. Virtually no banding in the gradients and average mosquito edging on the RGB colors. The compression artifacts are really only noticeable in the NTSC color bars and a little in the color filter test. And look at the x10 generation test... almost a pixel-perfect copy of the first generation! It actually passes through generations better than Kona's own 10-bit Trillions codec. Amazing! And look at that file size! Only 2.7 MB per second! That's better bandwidth (and way better quality) than DV can ever dream of. This codec truly can pass for an online codec with no problem. Best part is this codec is free to any QuickTime user, can be used on any platform and runs great even on PowerBooks.

Steve Mullen wrote.....

+"I feel the WDMP is better than BD because you can export directly from iMovie to a thumbdrive. (No generation loss going through AIC.) And, I love that from camera to WDMP, everything is solid-state."+

I sort of understand a little but can you expand some. Do you imply that you don't use export using QT?? when you export to WDMP??

And yes, I would welcome some addendum additions to your book with the latest best quality workflow. It would help keep things in the right prespective.

Thanks, your input is always appreciated.

Marvelou.

Marvelou,

I have the Canon HFS 100 which I think is the same as your w/out internal memory. I shot several hours of footage at 1080i60 and have been doing some tests also - w/ good results but the imports are definatly interlaced. I did notice just recently that there is a setting to change to film in 30p. I did a short test and imported at full - played the imported clips w/ quicktime and noticed that it was 1920x1080 progressive (at least it appears to be) - not interlaced. Curious if you tried the different settings?

Just an update:

Steve has updated the appropriate chapters and made them available for free to those who have purchased the iMovie '09 book. I just contacted him by e-mail (in his signature).

Thanks for the update Steve!

Lot's of things going on in the same thread.

1) Karsten explains the beauty of Photo-JPEG very well. Photo-JPEG also is a stealth codec because it doesn't reveal to iMovie whether a file's content is interlaced SD (which iM hates) or progressive SD (which seems OK). At this point, I've only updated my DV Chapters. See the "Motion jpeg or photo jpeg" posting for more info.

2) Lionden has tested 1080p30 with the QuickTime Player. Unless Apple changed iMovie, Karsten and I both think iMovie will treat this video as 1080i60 AND if you use scaling FX -- iM will chop it to 540p.

3) I was wrong wrong wrong on iM chopping to 540p interlaced HD if SPEED FX were used. iM correctly uses both fields of interlace HD as it SHOULD.

4) I was also wrong about iM chopping to 540p if MAPS & BACKGROUNDS were used with interlace HD. It doesn't as SHOULDN'T.

Did Apple fix these in 8.0.2 or 8.0.3?

5) I've been trying to post samples of DV edited using Photo-JPEG to YouTube, but as others report, Utube aborts my upload midway. Try this link to MobileMe: http://gallery.me.com/dvcinlv/100159

6) See my next NEW post for a summary of what I believe to be true when iM gets 1080i clips.

I use green screen and it doesn't hurt my 1080i60.