Advice on where to post

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Hi folks...

We recently acquired a Sony DCR-TRV22 video camera and shot some home
movies with it. It's now my job to transfer these videos to hard
drive, edit them, and get them burned to SVCD.

I'm not totally clueless in this area (for example, I've made SVCDs
before, I know what GSpot is and how to use it, etc.), but I clearly
have some learning to do. I've managed to capture the video but not
without problems and unresolved issues. I have a number of questions
about capture methods, formats, compression, resolution, aspect
ratios, and so forth.

Would this be the correct newsgroup for those sorts of questions? I've
read the FAQ and I get the impression that this group deals mostly
with higher end video endeavors. There don't seem to be a lot of posts
from people making home movies with six hundred dollar cameras.

If there's a group that would be more appropriate for my queries? If
so, I'd appreciate it if you could direct me towards it. Thanks.


Clay

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Clay Smith" <ClaySmith201@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:7o8lb0pcsthekrcv8pt8c773strkh20eo6@4ax.com...
> Hi folks...
>
> We recently acquired a Sony DCR-TRV22 video camera and shot some home
> movies with it. It's now my job to transfer these videos to hard
> drive, edit them, and get them burned to SVCD.
>
> I'm not totally clueless in this area (for example, I've made SVCDs
> before, I know what GSpot is and how to use it, etc.), but I clearly
> have some learning to do. I've managed to capture the video but not
> without problems and unresolved issues. I have a number of questions
> about capture methods, formats, compression, resolution, aspect
> ratios, and so forth.
>
> Would this be the correct newsgroup for those sorts of questions? I've
> read the FAQ and I get the impression that this group deals mostly
> with higher end video endeavors. There don't seem to be a lot of posts
> from people making home movies with six hundred dollar cameras.
>
> If there's a group that would be more appropriate for my queries? If
> so, I'd appreciate it if you could direct me towards it. Thanks.
>
>
> Clay

There's a FAQ? Who made it? Where is it?

Judging by the posts I've seen here, they run the gambit from
the most casual user to a number of pro videographers.
Rec(reational).video.desktop sounds like it would defiantly
include "people making home movies with six hundred dollar cameras".

Luck;
Ken

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Sun, 30 May 2004 23:34:05 -0500, "Ken Maltby"
<kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote:


>> Clay
>
> There's a FAQ? Who made it? Where is it?

Check out the faq here. Judging by the title, I'm thinking it's
actually only one of several.

http://www.mindspring.com/~erica/welcome2.html


And thanks for the advice.


Clay

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Clay Smith" wrote ...
> On Sun, 30 May 2004 23:34:05 -0500, "Ken Maltby"
> <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
> >> Clay
> >
> > There's a FAQ? Who made it? Where is it?
>
> Check out the faq here. Judging by the title, I'm thinking it's
> actually only one of several.
>
> http://www.mindspring.com/~erica/welcome2.html

That was a brief attempt at making an FAQ for this newgroup.
Erica was generous enough to try to get it started, but it never
took off with any content. That list represents only a tiny
fraction of the FAQs (and their answers) currently active on
this NG.

Actually, most of your questions are likely answered in the
tutorials, FAQs and forums on http://www.videohelp.com/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

The most useful site I found for VCD and SVCD information is
vcdhelp.com. They have lots of tutorials, go over many different
software options, and have really good general information.

-Andrew V. Romero

Clay Smith wrote:
> Hi folks...
>
> We recently acquired a Sony DCR-TRV22 video camera and shot some home
> movies with it. It's now my job to transfer these videos to hard
> drive, edit them, and get them burned to SVCD.
>
> I'm not totally clueless in this area (for example, I've made SVCDs
> before, I know what GSpot is and how to use it, etc.), but I clearly
> have some learning to do. I've managed to capture the video but not
> without problems and unresolved issues. I have a number of questions
> about capture methods, formats, compression, resolution, aspect
> ratios, and so forth.
>
> Would this be the correct newsgroup for those sorts of questions? I've
> read the FAQ and I get the impression that this group deals mostly
> with higher end video endeavors. There don't seem to be a lot of posts
> from people making home movies with six hundred dollar cameras.
>
> If there's a group that would be more appropriate for my queries? If
> so, I'd appreciate it if you could direct me towards it. Thanks.
>
>
> Clay

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

You'll find answers here and in rec.video.desktop.

I do a lot of video editing and DVD authoring, but I don't work with SVCDs
and I'm unfamiliar with GSpot, whatever that is, so I can't help you.


"Clay Smith" <ClaySmith201@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:7o8lb0pcsthekrcv8pt8c773strkh20eo6@4ax.com...
> Hi folks...
>
> We recently acquired a Sony DCR-TRV22 video camera and shot some home
> movies with it. It's now my job to transfer these videos to hard
> drive, edit them, and get them burned to SVCD.
>
> I'm not totally clueless in this area (for example, I've made SVCDs
> before, I know what GSpot is and how to use it, etc.), but I clearly
> have some learning to do. I've managed to capture the video but not
> without problems and unresolved issues. I have a number of questions
> about capture methods, formats, compression, resolution, aspect
> ratios, and so forth.
>
> Would this be the correct newsgroup for those sorts of questions? I've
> read the FAQ and I get the impression that this group deals mostly
> with higher end video endeavors. There don't seem to be a lot of posts
> from people making home movies with six hundred dollar cameras.
>
> If there's a group that would be more appropriate for my queries? If
> so, I'd appreciate it if you could direct me towards it. Thanks.
>
>
> Clay

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Andrew V. Romero" wrote ...
> The most useful site I found for VCD and SVCD information is
> vcdhelp.com. They have lots of tutorials, go over many different
> software options, and have really good general information.

Agree completely. Note that www.vcdhelp.com, www.dvdrhelp.com,
and www.svcdhelp.com all now point to the generically-renamed site:
www.videohelp.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Mon, 31 May 2004 09:03:32 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
<rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:



Thanks for the advice guys. I should say, though, that when it comes
to capturing video I've found the tutorials at videohelp.com (aka
vcdhelp, dvdrhelp, etc.) to be somewhat lacking. Maybe their tutorials
are dealing with the most commonly asked questions and for some
strange reason I'm asking different questions. I'm not sure. In any
event, I'm going to go ahead and post a question here in this
newsgroup, but I'm going to do it in a seperate thread.

Thanks again folks.

Clay

>"Andrew V. Romero" wrote ...
>> The most useful site I found for VCD and SVCD information is
>> vcdhelp.com. They have lots of tutorials, go over many different
>> software options, and have really good general information.
>
>Agree completely. Note that www.vcdhelp.com, www.dvdrhelp.com,
>and www.svcdhelp.com all now point to the generically-renamed site:
>www.videohelp.com
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Clay Smith" wrote ...
> Thanks for the advice guys. I should say, though, that
> when it comes to capturing video I've found the tutorials
> at videohelp.com (aka vcdhelp, dvdrhelp, etc.) to be
> somewhat lacking. Maybe their tutorials are dealing
> with the most commonly asked questions and for some
> strange reason I'm asking different questions. I'm not sure.
> In any event, I'm going to go ahead and post a question here
> in this newsgroup, but I'm going to do it in a seperate thread.

There are a couple of reason you may not have found what
you are seeking in the VideoHelp material, etc....

You asked a couple of questions about quality and pixel
dimensions (and audio sampling rate). Since the pixel size
and sampling rate are pre-determined for DV, you won't find
much discussion of them because it is the same everywhere
for everyone. If you are using conventional methods (Firewire,
capturing to AVI files, etc.) you are getting exactly the same
quality as most of the rest of us on this planet.

If you are further compressing the DV (which is already
compressed 5:1) upon capture, note that it is much harder
to accomplish optimal quality.

Your other question was about compression rate vs quality
(and indirectly its effect on media size (VCD vs. DVDr, etc.)
Since "quality" is completely subjective, you may be stuck
with doing your own experiments with your particular
combination of hardware, software, content, and expectations.
Again, you may not find much discussion about this because
everyone's situation (and expectations) are different.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Clay Smith" wrote ...
> 5:1? I'm a bit confused here....
>
> Do you mean that the firmware on the camera compresses
> the video that much as it puts it on the tape? So before it
> ever travels down the firewire to my computer, it's already
> been compressed to one fifth of its original size?

Exactly so. Uncompressed video takes ~65GB/hour. Only
professionals (or amateurs with deep pockets) have the
motivation/$$$ to store uncompressed video.

DV (compressed 5:1 right in the camcorder) takes ~13GB
per hour of storage space. Same whether on tape or on disk.

DVD disks store 4.7GB (per layer). Clearly video must be
further compressed (beyond the DV 5:1) to fit on the disk.
There are many ways of doing this. You have only started
out on an exploration of this wild territory.

> Or do you mean that when it's copied from the tape
> to my computer via firewire, it's compressed that much?

Capture (via firewire or USB2) changes nothing except the
location of the ones and zeroes.

> In the latter case, wouldn't the compression depend on the
> software you're using?

No. All DV codecs I've ever used (or heard of) do NO additional
compression. They merely copy the data directly from the tape
to an AVI file.

> Ulead Video Studio took my forty five minutes of video and
> turned it into avi files totalling about nine gigs in size. So if
> that was compressed at a 5:1 ratio, that would mean that the
> uncompressed version of the video would be 45 gigs.
> A gig a minute?

A bit MORE than a gig a minute, actually.

> Premiere seems to be creating files that are just as large.
> Are you saying that Ulead and Premiere are both compressing
> at a 5:1 ratio?

No they are not compressing at all. The compression was
done in your camcorder.

> Obviously, discussions of digital photography and videography
> require some sort of quantifiable measures of performance

But discussion of videography adds a third dimension (time)
and virtually all video compression takes place both spatially
and temporally. Selection (and use) of video compression
formats, parameters, and even competing software utilities
are a very hot topic of discussion as the market is still in great
flux. Perhaps in 5 years there will be a great shaking out of
all this stuff and the choices will be clear.

Meanwhile, the fact that there are >10x as many newsgroups
discussing DVD technology as there are discussing straight
video (as this one) should tell you something.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 09:27:54 -0500, "Ken Maltby"
<kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>>
>>
>
> So, by you, an analog TV signal captured/encoded to MPEG 2 at
>720x480 would always be of better "quality" than one captured/encoded
>at 352x480? Of course that would be if everything else were the same;
>same bitrate, encoding process (VBR, CBR, CQ), GOP structure,
>interlace treatment, ect...

Not sure about an analog TV signal; haven't gotten a chance to fool
around with those yet. I can tell you that if I have a five minute avi
file that's 720 x 480 and one of the same length that's 352 x 480, the
former will look a lot better than the latter when I get it onto a TV
screen.

And if I were having a conversation with a friend on this subject,
explaining to him that I intended to turn these avis into SVCDs or
whatever, it probably wouldn't even be necessary to specific that
"everything else is the same." In many circumstances, it would simply
be assumed.

Which brings us to....
>
> Truism ; It's NEVER safe to assume.

I'm not sure whether it's safe, but it's often useful. If I assume
something and *know* that I'm assuming it, it can be a useful way to
explore a subject, learn new things, etc. In this case, if I assume
that higher resolution and less compression will lead to a better
quality image, then I can get to work figuring out how to improve (or
at least not diminish) resolution and keep compression to a minimum.

But I always keep in mind that these ideas are assumptions, not facts.
So, if I encounter a challenge to them, I can approach it with an open
mind. I can say "well, alright, let's refrain from making these
assumptions for a little while and see where that leads us."

I
> I take back my first post to this thread. While you will fit right in,
>we
>have more than enough posters with your attitude.


I'm just saying that there is some consensus about what makes one
image better than another. If there weren't, DVD players wouldn't be
replacing VHS players and Sony wouldn't be trying to cram more
megapixels into its cameras. There is, of course, plenty of room for
disagreement on an infinite number of issues and in any given
situation you might have to take into account numerous factors.
However, there clearly are some quantifiable measures of quality.


4 megapixels is better than one megapixel and a brand new DVD copy of
The Godfather is better than a third generation VHS tape made from a
TV broadcast. There's enough of a consensus on questions such as this
that people often carry on conversations in which it is assumed that
the DVD copy is more desireable than the VHS copy.

There are plenty of issues, of course, where no such consensus exists.



Clay

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:40bc9261$0$19296$a32e20b9@news.nntpservers.com...
> So, by you, an analog TV signal captured/encoded to MPEG 2 at
> 720x480 would always be of better "quality" than one captured/encoded
> at 352x480? Of course that would be if everything else were the same;
> same bitrate, encoding process (VBR, CBR, CQ), GOP structure,
> interlace treatment, ect...

I didn't get that at all from his post. Of course since you quoted the
whole thing an put your reply at the bottom it was difficult to tell where
you got that from.

> Truism ; It's NEVER safe to assume.

Generic advice?

> I take back my first post to this thread. While you will fit right
in,
> we
> have more than enough posters with your attitude.

LOL, why is it that the most accusatory posters always seem to fit the mold
of their accusations?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"FLY135" <fly_135(@ hot not not)notmail.com> wrote in message
newsJ0vc.33674$zO3.5842@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:40bc9261$0$19296$a32e20b9@news.nntpservers.com...
> > So, by you, an analog TV signal captured/encoded to MPEG 2 at
> > 720x480 would always be of better "quality" than one captured/encoded
> > at 352x480? Of course that would be if everything else were the same;
> > same bitrate, encoding process (VBR, CBR, CQ), GOP structure,
> > interlace treatment, ect...
>
> I didn't get that at all from his post. Of course since you quoted the
> whole thing an put your reply at the bottom it was difficult to tell where
> you got that from.
>
> > Truism ; It's NEVER safe to assume.
>
> Generic advice?
>

** Since you sniped the entire post without reading any of it,
including the paragraph immediately above my reply, it is no
surprise you are confused. **


> > I take back my first post to this thread. While you will fit right
> in,
> > we
> > have more than enough posters with your attitude.
>
> LOL, why is it that the most accusatory posters always seem to fit the
mold
> of their accusations?
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:40bca578$0$19321$a32e20b9@news.nntpservers.com...
>
> "FLY135" <fly_135(@ hot not not)notmail.com> wrote in message
> newsJ0vc.33674$zO3.5842@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > news:40bc9261$0$19296$a32e20b9@news.nntpservers.com...
> > > So, by you, an analog TV signal captured/encoded to MPEG 2 at
> > > 720x480 would always be of better "quality" than one captured/encoded
> > > at 352x480? Of course that would be if everything else were the
same;
> > > same bitrate, encoding process (VBR, CBR, CQ), GOP structure,
> > > interlace treatment, ect...
> >
> > I didn't get that at all from his post. Of course since you quoted the
> > whole thing an put your reply at the bottom it was difficult to tell
where
> > you got that from.
> >
> > > Truism ; It's NEVER safe to assume.
> >
> > Generic advice?
> >
>
> ** Since you sniped the entire post without reading any of it,
> including the paragraph immediately above my reply, it is no
> surprise you are confused. **

Sorry but you are confused about me being confused.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Clay Smith wrote:
>
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 09:27:54 -0500, "Ken Maltby"
> <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > So, by you, an analog TV signal captured/encoded to MPEG 2 at
> >720x480 would always be of better "quality" than one captured/encoded
> >at 352x480? Of course that would be if everything else were the same;
> >same bitrate, encoding process (VBR, CBR, CQ), GOP structure,
> >interlace treatment, ect...
>
> Not sure about an analog TV signal; haven't gotten a chance to fool
> around with those yet. I can tell you that if I have a five minute avi
> file that's 720 x 480 and one of the same length that's 352 x 480, the
> former will look a lot better than the latter when I get it onto a TV
> screen.
>
> And if I were having a conversation with a friend on this subject,
> explaining to him that I intended to turn these avis into SVCDs or
> whatever, it probably wouldn't even be necessary to specific that
> "everything else is the same." In many circumstances, it would simply
> be assumed.

In that case it could be false. 352x480 can look better than
720x480 using a same "low" bitrate (say SVCD bitrate) for
both of them. Depends also a bit on the source (whether it's noisy
or not, fast movement, etc.).

Wilbert