Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Best format for long term archiving of digitized video

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
October 21, 2004 1:34:00 AM

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

I have a rather large collection of family videos shot on Beta and Hi8,
dating from the mid-80's. I plan to digitize them using Pinnacle Studio 9
AV/DV. My question has to do with the best way to store them after they are
digitized.

Pinnacle digitizes to AVI format onto the computer hard drive, which they
claim has the maximum quality. If I render them for copying to DVDs, my
understanding is that they will be converted to MPEG2, which supposedly has
some additional loss (although I haven't been able to observe a lot of
difference). I only have 200 gig on the hard drive, so I cannot store all of
the AVIs there long term. So here are my questions:

1. Is there enough difference between AVI and MPEG2 that I should consider
it important to archive in AVI?

2. If the answer to #1 is yes, I would understand that my only solution is
to purchase a deck or D8, DV or mini-DV tape camcorder (or other?) to
archive the information. Are there opinions about the best approach (taking
into consideration camera quality and cost, cost of storage media, quality
of storage, longevity, etc.)?

Thanks for your help.

Terry Quinn




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
October 21, 2004 1:34:01 AM

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

For most of us who want to preserve personal videotapes, copying to
DVD is the practical solution. The hardware costs next to nothing -
under $100 will buy just about the best internal writer there is, and
less than twice that will buy a direct writer that will save you any
hands-on effort of passing the video stream through a computer.

The stand-alone also denies you the ability to edit the video, but I
gather from your comment that you have a *lot* of tapes to archive and
won't necessarily want to spend a lot of time.

(From an analog source like Hi8, you'll need a digitizer of some kind,
anothr $150. I'm happy with the ADS Pyro A/V Link - Svideo or other
input choices, firewire out, in its latest incarnation absolutely a
cakewalk to use.)

At the moment, the best quality 8x blanks are 35 cents, so you can
easily make a couple of copies on different media and store them in
different places. Although claims for DVD media longevity are
impressive, and we know that tape deteriorates relatively quickly, if
I wanted to preserve video for ages I'd copy the DVD's every ten
years. That's a nicely trivial step.

If you use a decent encoder, the lossy compression that mpeg-2 imposes
will in no way be noticeable, nor interfere with your ability to later
edit the material. Storing .avi files is better, but is guilding the
lily - 30 minutes of DV quality avi is 7GB, and shrinks to about 1GB
as high quality mpg.


"Terry Quinn" <the_quin@mtco.com> wrote:

>I have a rather large collection of family videos shot on Beta and Hi8,
>dating from the mid-80's. I plan to digitize them using Pinnacle Studio 9
>AV/DV. My question has to do with the best way to store them after they are
>digitized.
>
>Pinnacle digitizes to AVI format onto the computer hard drive, which they
>claim has the maximum quality. If I render them for copying to DVDs, my
>understanding is that they will be converted to MPEG2, which supposedly has
>some additional loss (although I haven't been able to observe a lot of
>difference). I only have 200 gig on the hard drive, so I cannot store all of
>the AVIs there long term. So here are my questions:
>
>1. Is there enough difference between AVI and MPEG2 that I should consider
>it important to archive in AVI?
>
>2. If the answer to #1 is yes, I would understand that my only solution is
>to purchase a deck or D8, DV or mini-DV tape camcorder (or other?) to
>archive the information. Are there opinions about the best approach (taking
>into consideration camera quality and cost, cost of storage media, quality
>of storage, longevity, etc.)?
>
>Thanks for your help.
>
>Terry Quinn
>
>
>
>
>----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
>---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
October 21, 2004 3:05:58 AM

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

If you have the storage, go with AVI for archiving. The primary reason is that
you will be able to easily edit the family videos in the future. MPEG-2 is more
of a "final output" format that doesnt lend itself to editing very well,
although it compresses better than AVI and will give you more video/DVD blank.

The dual-layer DVD media (9 GB) are coming down in price and would prob. be your
best bet for archiving. Otherwise, rent an LTO tape drive (some tape formats
can hold 400GB per tape).



"Terry Quinn" <the_quin@mtco.com> wrote in message
news:41771e1e$1_4@127.0.0.1...
> I have a rather large collection of family videos shot on Beta and Hi8,
> dating from the mid-80's. I plan to digitize them using Pinnacle Studio 9
> AV/DV. My question has to do with the best way to store them after they are
> digitized.
>
> Pinnacle digitizes to AVI format onto the computer hard drive, which they
> claim has the maximum quality. If I render them for copying to DVDs, my
> understanding is that they will be converted to MPEG2, which supposedly has
> some additional loss (although I haven't been able to observe a lot of
> difference). I only have 200 gig on the hard drive, so I cannot store all of
> the AVIs there long term. So here are my questions:
>
> 1. Is there enough difference between AVI and MPEG2 that I should consider
> it important to archive in AVI?
>
> 2. If the answer to #1 is yes, I would understand that my only solution is
> to purchase a deck or D8, DV or mini-DV tape camcorder (or other?) to
> archive the information. Are there opinions about the best approach (taking
> into consideration camera quality and cost, cost of storage media, quality
> of storage, longevity, etc.)?
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> Terry Quinn
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Related resources
Anonymous
October 21, 2004 3:07:36 AM

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

"Terry Quinn" wrote ...
>I have a rather large collection of family videos shot
> on Beta and Hi8, dating from the mid-80's. I plan to
> digitize them using Pinnacle Studio 9 AV/DV. My
> question has to do with the best way to store them
> after they are digitized.
>
> Pinnacle digitizes to AVI format onto the computer
> hard drive, which they claim has the maximum quality.
> If I render them for copying to DVDs, my understanding
> is that they will be converted to MPEG2, which supposedly
> has some additional loss (although I haven't been able to
> observe a lot of difference). I only have 200 gig on the hard
> drive, so I cannot store all of the AVIs there long term. So
> here are my questions:
>
> 1. Is there enough difference between AVI and MPEG2 that I
> should consider it important to archive in AVI?

With good-quality source material, yes the difference between
AVI and MPEGx is significant. However, you said that you were
archiving 20-year old Beta & Hi8. And in your own words:
"I haven't been able to observe a lot of difference."

> 2. If the answer to #1 is yes, I would understand that my
> only solution is to purchase a deck or D8, DV or mini-DV
> tape camcorder (or other?) to archive the information. Are
> there opinions about the best approach (taking into
> consideration camera quality and cost, cost of storage media,
> quality of storage, longevity, etc.)?

DV-quality AVI is ~13GB per hour. Hard disk space in my
neighborhood these days is going for less than $1 per gigabyte.

OTOH, DVD-R disks are going for less than a quarter of that.
A DVD-R will store 12~15 minutes of AVI per disk. Many
people think that is the best combination of quality/cost.

OTOH, If you are only preserving the tapes as-is for posterity,
saving as standard DVDs (MPEG2) may be the best choice.
As others have pointed out, MPEG is much more difficult to
edit after the fact than AVI.

OTOOH, a cheap DV camcorder would serve not only as a
DV tape recorder, but also a next-generation camcorder for
shooting with today.
Anonymous
October 21, 2004 11:19:29 AM

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

Thanks for everyone's useful comments. Sounds like I pretty much had this
understood . . . AVI is best, especially if I want to edit more in the
future, but DVD isn't too bad if I'm just looking for a consumer solution.
Now I just need to decide what to put on CD and what to put on mini-DV.

As to the digitizing, the Pinnacle Studio 9 AV/DV has already provided the
hardware. And it is doing a good job. The material shot in Hi8 is coming
out well, especially since I'm playing it from a Sony Hi8 VCR with some
digital correction (noise and TBC) of its own.

Terry





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
October 21, 2004 12:05:04 PM

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

"Terry Quinn" <the_quin@mtco.com> wrote:

>Thanks for everyone's useful comments. Sounds like I pretty much had this
>understood . . . AVI is best, especially if I want to edit more in the
>future, but DVD isn't too bad if I'm just looking for a consumer solution.
>Now I just need to decide what to put on CD and what to put on mini-DV.
>
>As to the digitizing, the Pinnacle Studio 9 AV/DV has already provided the
>hardware. And it is doing a good job. The material shot in Hi8 is coming
>out well, especially since I'm playing it from a Sony Hi8 VCR with some
>digital correction (noise and TBC) of its own.
>
>Terry
>
>
Terry, the comments about "editing mpg is difficult" are simply off
base. Converting back to avi is an extra step, but is relatively quick
and trivial. Don't let that stop you. Likewise, you'll do yourself a
disservice if you get it in your mind that mpeg-2 has meaningful
degradation. Do use a good encoder, of course, and a high bitrate.
Anonymous
October 21, 2004 11:25:35 PM

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

John <usenet@nospam.org> wrote in message news:<gjjfn05qtr7m33b2skf78c7hkbiqspp2jg@4ax.com>...

> Terry, the comments about "editing mpg is difficult" are simply off
> base. Converting back to avi is an extra step, but is relatively quick
> and trivial. Don't let that stop you. Likewise, you'll do yourself a
> disservice if you get it in your mind that mpeg-2 has meaningful
> degradation. Do use a good encoder, of course, and a high bitrate.

What an uninformed and irresponsible piece of, well, I hesitate to
call it advice. MPEG-2 is a lossy compression scheme. No matter what
you may think, you cannot extract MPEG-2 video back into the original
AVI, it just isn't possible. You are simply creating an AVI-format
copy of the MPEG-2 data, including all artifacts and lost detail. No
matter what bitrate you use on any type of encoder, once you
re-compress the edited AVI back into MPEG-2, you will have compressed
it twice. Then, if you go back to that and edit it again, you're
going to end up compressing it yet again.

What you're advocating is akin to suggesting that you can copy a copy
of a copy and still suffer no generation loss. While that is normally
true in the digital world, once you introduce compression OF ANY KIND
AT ANY BITRATE, the result is not as good as the original and it is
impossible to retrieve the original from the copy. I can take a DV
cassette and record it onto VHS, but if I copy that VHS back onto DV
it does not magically regain all the clarity of DV simply because it's
on that format. Similarly, I can record a CD onto cassette, then burn
the contents of that cassette back onto that CD, and even though it is
on a CD, it is still only cassette quality. I don't suppose you'd
understand things like that, but for the sake of others who might have
taken your ignorant suggestion at face value, I thought it worth
pointing out.
Anonymous
October 21, 2004 11:29:41 PM

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

Actually, when I've tried to edit in Pinnacle using MPEG as the source
instead of AVI, there isn't even an extra step. I haven't been able to
determine yet if there is any degradation from the source MPEG.



"John" <usenet@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:gjjfn05qtr7m33b2skf78c7hkbiqspp2jg@4ax.com...

> Terry, the comments about "editing mpg is difficult" are simply off
> base. Converting back to avi is an extra step, but is relatively quick
> and trivial. Don't let that stop you. Likewise, you'll do yourself a
> disservice if you get it in your mind that mpeg-2 has meaningful
> degradation. Do use a good encoder, of course, and a high bitrate.
>




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
October 22, 2004 2:36:53 AM

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

PDTV, your message is zealotry. I did not suggest that mpg-2 is
lossless, merely that for us unwashed masses, it's far more than
merely "good enough". We each get to set our own standards, and yours
are no doubt noble but probably not applicable to this situation. The

Anyone interested in the ultimate lossless storage that you advocate
would be asking how to archive his professionally produced betacam
tapes, or better. Those of us with a collection of Hi8 tapes are not
served with stories about how lossy mpg-2 is. My "best" Hi8 equipment
was a VX-3, and I don't particularly want to go to any great expense
to create a perfect copy of analog noise.



pdtv_info@yahoo.com (PDTV) wrote:

>John <usenet@nospam.org> wrote in message news:<gjjfn05qtr7m33b2skf78c7hkbiqspp2jg@4ax.com>...
>
>> Terry, the comments about "editing mpg is difficult" are simply off
>> base. Converting back to avi is an extra step, but is relatively quick
>> and trivial. Don't let that stop you. Likewise, you'll do yourself a
>> disservice if you get it in your mind that mpeg-2 has meaningful
>> degradation. Do use a good encoder, of course, and a high bitrate.
>
>What an uninformed and irresponsible piece of, well, I hesitate to
>call it advice. MPEG-2 is a lossy compression scheme. No matter what
>you may think, you cannot extract MPEG-2 video back into the original
>AVI, it just isn't possible. You are simply creating an AVI-format
>copy of the MPEG-2 data, including all artifacts and lost detail. No
>matter what bitrate you use on any type of encoder, once you
>re-compress the edited AVI back into MPEG-2, you will have compressed
>it twice. Then, if you go back to that and edit it again, you're
>going to end up compressing it yet again.
>
>What you're advocating is akin to suggesting that you can copy a copy
>of a copy and still suffer no generation loss. While that is normally
>true in the digital world, once you introduce compression OF ANY KIND
>AT ANY BITRATE, the result is not as good as the original and it is
>impossible to retrieve the original from the copy. I can take a DV
>cassette and record it onto VHS, but if I copy that VHS back onto DV
>it does not magically regain all the clarity of DV simply because it's
>on that format. Similarly, I can record a CD onto cassette, then burn
>the contents of that cassette back onto that CD, and even though it is
>on a CD, it is still only cassette quality. I don't suppose you'd
>understand things like that, but for the sake of others who might have
>taken your ignorant suggestion at face value, I thought it worth
>pointing out.
Anonymous
October 22, 2004 7:16:39 PM

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

John <usenet@nospam.org> wrote in message news:<0d6hn0hoagh7c3gs9jke9jm5360dgn0lbt@4ax.com>...
> PDTV, your message is zealotry. I did not suggest that mpg-2 is
> lossless, merely that for us unwashed masses, it's far more than
> merely "good enough". We each get to set our own standards, and yours
> are no doubt noble but probably not applicable to this situation.

It's not "zealotry" it's fact. Sure, MPEG-2 is "good enough" for most
applications, I'm not disputing that. I have plenty of stuff on VHS
that once archived on DVD I plan to get rid of the original tapes.
Even though there are better technologies on the horizon (HDVD,
Blu-ray, etc.), I don't see any point in keeping the original masters
in order to re-master them in the future. It's VHS, so MPEG-2 on
DVD-R is an accurate enough reproduction.

My point is that if someone archives to MPEG-2 they should be aware
that further editing of the material is not recommended. For
instance, I had a set of five T-120 VHS tapes that were taking up far
too much space and had some redundant material on them, etc. I took
those five tapes and compiled the most important footage onto two new
tapes (this was before DVD), and even though there was noticeable
generation loss, it was fine. However, I did this with the
understanding that if I ever wanted to go back and edit those two
cassettes further that the quality would degrade yet again and at that
point the pleasure of watching that footage would be significantly
diminished.

All I'm saying is that you really have to forget that MPEG-2 is
digital and treat it like an analog format. You ARE going to
experience degradation, and every time you transcode, there's gonna be
MORE degradation. Converting to AVI is NOT going to prevent this.
The earlier reply that suggested MPEG-2 as a viable format only if
further editing would be unlikely was 100% correct, and your follow-up
that whether or not the OP would want to do further editing didn't
really matter was ignorant and irresponsible. I'm sure you probably
can't see why, but if you do enough converting, editing, and
re-compressing of MPEG-2 video, you'll begin to see a difference.
Also, you have to take into account that this footage is not always
gonna be viewed in Media Player on some PC desktop or on a 19" analog
TV.

Even if artifacts are not visible now, they will be once technology
improves. At this point, you can't see all the detail that's on a
DVD, whether it's picture information or artifacts, on a normal analog
TV. Eventually, most people will have high-def displays that will
show any sign of macroblocking or MPEG artifacting. If this is
something the OP wants to preserve for the future (which is what he
indicated), then he needs to either compress it into MPEG-2, burn it
onto DVD-R and leave it, or store it in some kind of uncompressed
format (or DV at the very least), so that further editing will not
introduce significant degradation. That is not "zealotry", that is in
the best interest of the original poster. Your "live in the moment,
the future doesn't matter" attitude is irresponsible and
short-sighted, and if taken seriously, will leave the original poster
with a blurry macroblocked mess that is going to be barely watchable
once he edits and transcodes one too many times.
Anonymous
October 22, 2004 8:50:05 PM

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

Some Pinnacle products have been doing this for years. Mpegs encoded
with the DV500 could be edited without further encoding unless transitions
etc were added. Even then it would just be the transitions that were re
encoded. The new Liquid Edition 6 is claimed to do this.

http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Focus-on-editing/f...

"Terry Quinn" <the_quin@mtco.com> wrote in message
news:41785266_4@127.0.0.1...
> Actually, when I've tried to edit in Pinnacle using MPEG as the source
> instead of AVI, there isn't even an extra step. I haven't been able to
> determine yet if there is any degradation from the source MPEG.
>
>
>
> "John" <usenet@nospam.org> wrote in message
> news:gjjfn05qtr7m33b2skf78c7hkbiqspp2jg@4ax.com...
>
>> Terry, the comments about "editing mpg is difficult" are simply off
>> base. Converting back to avi is an extra step, but is relatively quick
>> and trivial. Don't let that stop you. Likewise, you'll do yourself a
>> disservice if you get it in your mind that mpeg-2 has meaningful
>> degradation. Do use a good encoder, of course, and a high bitrate.
>>
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
> News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
> Newsgroups
> ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Anonymous
October 26, 2004 2:06:55 AM

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

Before my question causes any more animosity, let me say that I'm
appreciative of both views. I have done some editing on major projects
where I put in significant effort on Hi8 originals (using just analogue
assembly editing . . . uhg), and for now, I'll probably copy those to AVI
files (break it into segments that will fit on multiple DVDs, at least until
I get something to copy to DV tapes. I think I can do this with Pinnacle in
a way that if I need to, I can reassemble it as DVI. Will I edit it again
in the future? Don't know, but I might.

At the same time, I have some historical material that I'd like to keep, but
will probably always be just recreational viewing for the family, with
little likelihood of further editing. I'll run those off to MPEG2 files in
DVD format, and box up the tapes, knowing that if I ever get into them
again, they probably will be rotten, and all I'll have is the DVD in MPEG2.

So again, thanks for everyone's advice, it has been very helpful.

Terry





"PDTV" <pdtv_info@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2689a1aa.0410221416.322df234@posting.google.com...
That is not "zealotry", that is in
> the best interest of the original poster. Your "live in the moment,
> the future doesn't matter" attitude is irresponsible and
> short-sighted, and if taken seriously, will leave the original poster
> with a blurry macroblocked mess that is going to be barely watchable
> once he edits and transcodes one too many times.




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Anonymous
October 26, 2004 4:03:28 PM

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

As I said in e-mail, it's not animosity, it's simply a desire to
expose ignorance for what it is. Just because MPEG is digital, it
doesn't mean you can edit and re-encode without degradation. The fact
remains that when you have compressed an AVI into MPEG, then convert
that MPEG file back to AVI, you aren't getting the original AVI, just
a copy of the MPEG.
October 26, 2004 5:06:41 PM

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

Just to add to the fun it should also be said recordable media shouldn't be
considered permanent and rots over time. Personally, if it'll be missed,
remember to make a fresh copy every few years. Also remember optical media
is largely expected to be replaced by something like Compact Flash cards in
the near future. So your disc, regardless of whats on it, will be outdated.

DVD-MPG2 is lossy and poorly set can make scrambled eggs out of video, but
to its credit you can probably count on finding a device to read it ten
years from now. AVIs on the other hand your assuming PCs and Windows will
remain dominate and retain backwards compatibility. Personally I use DV
tapes for archiving, it the quality of an avi, its kept in a common consumer
format, they're pretty small, and should last long enough until the next
generation of junk comes along. So your plan sounds well enough.
October 27, 2004 6:01:39 AM

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

Exactly, people need to remember that as they compress to a smaller file,
they lose data and can never go back to a bigger file without the conversion
making up new data.
This is hard for some people to understand but it applies to all digital
media, photos, music etc...

Many people transfer their audio cd's to mp3's onto the computer and then
burn a playlist back to a cd.
It converts back to the audio cd format just so that it can play in home
audio players.
Now, does it have all the music data it originally had as an audio cd? No,
of course not.
Did it sound acceptable as an MP3? If so, then it will sound just as good
when converted back to an audio cd.
Most people can't hear the difference, and the missing music data wasn't
really needed for the song to sound good.

It is the same principal with video, from an avi to mpeg2, you remove
unnecessary data, for instance the pixels info on objects that are
stationary, pixel information on background scenes that don't change much,
the sky color etc..
If the resulting video looks good as an MPEG2 file, it will look just the
same when it's converted back to an avi.
Which isn't going to increase the quality but not decrease it any further
than the original compression.

As far as editing, you lose some detail when you add titles and do fades and
effects on the original video data, even when working with DV or AVI, but of
course, there is more data to begin with, so it will look better overhaul.
People just need to picture this mentally and then always remember the rule,
if you throw out data, you'll have less data when you want to go back to a
better format, so there will be no real benefit to go back.
Unless, as in the case of making a cd from mp3's, you just need to go back
to get it to play in software that doesn't read the new format well.

In the analog world people seen the results of data loss and corruption
easily when they use to make a copy of a copy and add a title and then copy
it back etc... There was so much generation loss, it was obvious.
With digital formats this generation loss is gone, but people will still see
corruption and generation loss when editing mpeg video, not as bad as
editing vhs tapes use to give you, but some quality loss.
I think it is minimal compared to analog editing, and can yield acceptable
results if not overdone.
So it can be ok to edit mpeg2 video and have some artifacts introduced but
still yield and acceptable picture for most people. Consumer video quality,
let's say. Professionals should know better. :) 

AnthonyR.

"PDTV" <pdtv_info@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2689a1aa.0410261103.79d3f3ac@posting.google.com...
> As I said in e-mail, it's not animosity, it's simply a desire to
> expose ignorance for what it is. Just because MPEG is digital, it
> doesn't mean you can edit and re-encode without degradation. The fact
> remains that when you have compressed an AVI into MPEG, then convert
> that MPEG file back to AVI, you aren't getting the original AVI, just
> a copy of the MPEG.
Anonymous
October 27, 2004 6:01:40 AM

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

Thanks for backing me up here, but I think you're muddying the point
further.

I don't expect "consumers" to keep their footage in pristine quality
-- they needn't use DV, or hi-def, or what have you. In fact, I'll
say yet again that MPEG-2 is FINE as a storage format, and I archive
PLENTY of stuff to MPEG-2 so I won't have to bother with VHS, and I
don't even keep the original tapes in most cases.

The fact remains that editing MPEG video and re-encoding into MPEG is
very much like analog recording -- you're not only going to GET a kind
of "generation loss
", it MULTIPLIES as you edit and re-edit.

Open up a .jpeg picture in a program like Photoshop. Looks fine,
doesn't it? JPEG is a "lossy" compression scheme, but there's nothing
wrong with the picture just because it's a JPEG, is there? Nope,
looks fine, doesn't it? Now save that JPEG as another JPEG using
quality setting 8, which is probably higher than what it was
originally saved at (you can tell by whatever setting is already in
the dialog box). Now, open the resulting file and take a look at it.
Better yet, save that file again as yet another JPEG, also at the
"High" (8) quality setting. It shouldn't take more that a couple
iterations of this process for the picture to reach "unacceptable"
quality, especially since you've seen the original JPEG that was
probably saved from an uncompressed image.

Now, you may ask, how can this be when every time you saved out a new
JPEG, you chose the "High" quality setting? Look at it this way --
even if you save an uncompressed image as a JPEG at the highest
quality setting, you're probably only getting 80% of the detail that's
in the image. Furthermore, every time you save it back out as a JPEG,
EVEN AT THE HIGHEST SETTING, you're only getting 80% of the detail in
the first JPEG, which is already only 80% of what was in the
uncompressed file. Also keep in mind that you can save a JPEG as a
..psd, TIFF, or whatever, and it's still not any better than the
original JPEG, and will continue to deteriorate if you re-save the
image as a JPEG, even without editing it. Here's how it works:

UNCOMPRESSED IMAGE (100% detail)

JPEG at "10" setting (80% of original detail)

SAVE AGAIN AS JPEG at "10" (80% of 80% which equals 64% of original
detail)

SAVE AS UNCOMPRESSED .PSD FILE (preserves all of the 64% detail you
have left, but doesn't get you back any lost detail)

SAVE AGAIN AS JPEG at "10" (80% of 64% which equals 51.2% detail)


Anyway, I think you can see where this is going. The point I'm trying
to make is this: Is 80% of the original detail "acceptable"? Sure,
you probably won't even notice it. If you decide you REALLY want to
edit your material and you don't mind a little drop in quality, is 64%
"watchable"? Depends on your personal tastes, but for argument's sake
I'll accept that. Thing is, now you've got footage that's 64% of what
it once was sitting around. Say in a couple years, new equipment
comes out that's backwards-compatible with the format your footage is
in so it'll still play it, but even at 100% quality, it will show
limitations of the recording medium (Hi8, whatever) you originally
used. So with that information (that even 100% quality isn't gonna
look so hot because it was recorded on older technology), is 64% still
good enough? In fact, since you now only have 64%, are you really all
that confident that you can still go back and edit if you want to? If
100% will show its age on your new equipment, are you that sure that
"because it's digital", going down to 51.2% isn't going to be
noticeable???

Now, if anyone still doesn't get what I'm saying here, find yourself a
nice full-size VHS camcorder and stick with it -- you have no business
with anything more advanced.

Good day to you all.
October 27, 2004 6:04:57 AM

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

"terry" <reply2group@thanks.zzz> wrote in message
news:BZrfd.28185$%k.645@pd7tw2no...

> DVD-MPG2 is lossy and poorly set can make scrambled eggs out of video, but
> to its credit you can probably count on finding a device to read it ten
> years from now.

Terry,
I was just wondering if the word "lossy" as used in your sentence is an
actual word?
I know what it means cause it's used on this forum constantly. But I looked
it up on my electronic
dictionary, and the best match it found was lousy, LOL
Is it one of those words specific to our field? Maybe my dictionary just
isn't big enough to include it.
Just curious,

AnthonyR
Anonymous
October 27, 2004 10:26:57 AM

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

AnthonyR wrote:

> "terry" <reply2group@thanks.zzz> wrote in message
> news:BZrfd.28185$%k.645@pd7tw2no...
>
>
>>DVD-MPG2 is lossy and poorly set can make scrambled eggs out of video, but
>>to its credit you can probably count on finding a device to read it ten
>>years from now.
>
>
> Terry,
> I was just wondering if the word "lossy" as used in your sentence is an
> actual word?
> I know what it means cause it's used on this forum constantly. But I looked
> it up on my electronic
> dictionary, and the best match it found was lousy, LOL
> Is it one of those words specific to our field? Maybe my dictionary just
> isn't big enough to include it.
> Just curious,
>
> AnthonyR

Webopedia (http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/L/lossy_compression.html) has a
pretty good description on the word lossy.

"Refers to data compression techniques in which some amount of data is
lost. Lossy compression technologies attempt to eliminate redundant or
unnecessary information. Most video compression technologies, such as
MPEG, use a lossy technique."

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossy_data_compression) is
another great source.

-Richard
October 27, 2004 10:55:15 AM

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

> >>DVD-MPG2 is lossy and poorly set can make scrambled eggs out of video,
but
> >>to its credit you can probably count on finding a device to read it ten
> >>years from now.
> >
> >
> > Terry,
> > I was just wondering if the word "lossy" as used in your sentence is an
> > actual word?
> > I know what it means cause it's used on this forum constantly. But I
looked
> > it up on my electronic
> > dictionary, and the best match it found was lousy, LOL
> > Is it one of those words specific to our field? Maybe my dictionary just
> > isn't big enough to include it.
> > Just curious,
> >
> > AnthonyR
>
> Webopedia (http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/L/lossy_compression.html) has a
> pretty good description on the word lossy.
>
> "Refers to data compression techniques in which some amount of data is
> lost. Lossy compression technologies attempt to eliminate redundant or
> unnecessary information. Most video compression technologies, such as
> MPEG, use a lossy technique."
>
> Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossy_data_compression) is
> another great source.
>
> -Richard
>

lol, I think the term got popular as a quick way to explain mp3.
October 27, 2004 1:12:06 PM

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

The info posted below sounds very authoritative, and leads to the
conclusion that anyone who dares to make multi-generation edits is a
fool who should be using primitive tools suited to his unwashed state.

Unfortunately, it's the poster who's misinformed. Before anyone is
misled into thinking any of this is true, try the experiment yourself.

I made 6 generations of jpeg saves starting from a high-resolution
jpg (from a Fuji 600 digicam), then trimmed the last generation in
half and slid that half on top the first generation. On a good quality
CRT display, running 1600x1280, zoomed 200%, there was NO visible
difference between the first and sixth generation. YMMV, of course,
but the content was reasonably appropriate to the test.

The OP makes an argument that sounds scholarly - 80 % degradation each
time, multiplied out, leads to garbage quickly. His error is in not
realizing that the algorithms don't work that way - the first
compression will lose detail that it deems unnecessary. The following
decompression will display a picture that's may indeed be missing 20%
of its information. However, the next compression will be starting
with a picture that has already been processed, and that compression
step will find that it can complete its work without throwing away
significant additional information.

TRY IT YOURSELF, and remember to not believe everything you read, even
(especially?) when there are meaningful-sounding numbers scattered
about.

Now I too have taken liberties in making my point. I used the same
software to go back and forth each time, so the same algorithms were
used. Had I used different programs with different algorithms, there
might be a chance that the algorithm designers would have taken
different approaches, and additional details could have been lost as I
went along. My personal experience says that's not a significant issue
- the art is well developed and the algorithms tend follow the same
rules - but I don't know that for a fact. Even when working with
high-resolution still images, though, a far more critical environment
than a movie, we've probably all observed that we can let our digicam
do a jpg save, we can edit the image and do a second jpg save, and can
still print an 8x10 or larger that we're proud of.



pdtv_info@yahoo.com (PDTV) wrote:

>Thanks for backing me up here, but I think you're muddying the point
>further.
>
>I don't expect "consumers" to keep their footage in pristine quality
>-- they needn't use DV, or hi-def, or what have you. In fact, I'll
>say yet again that MPEG-2 is FINE as a storage format, and I archive
>PLENTY of stuff to MPEG-2 so I won't have to bother with VHS, and I
>don't even keep the original tapes in most cases.
>
>The fact remains that editing MPEG video and re-encoding into MPEG is
>very much like analog recording -- you're not only going to GET a kind
>of "generation loss
>", it MULTIPLIES as you edit and re-edit.
>
>Open up a .jpeg picture in a program like Photoshop. Looks fine,
>doesn't it? JPEG is a "lossy" compression scheme, but there's nothing
>wrong with the picture just because it's a JPEG, is there? Nope,
>looks fine, doesn't it? Now save that JPEG as another JPEG using
>quality setting 8, which is probably higher than what it was
>originally saved at (you can tell by whatever setting is already in
>the dialog box). Now, open the resulting file and take a look at it.
>Better yet, save that file again as yet another JPEG, also at the
>"High" (8) quality setting. It shouldn't take more that a couple
>iterations of this process for the picture to reach "unacceptable"
>quality, especially since you've seen the original JPEG that was
>probably saved from an uncompressed image.
>
>Now, you may ask, how can this be when every time you saved out a new
>JPEG, you chose the "High" quality setting? Look at it this way --
>even if you save an uncompressed image as a JPEG at the highest
>quality setting, you're probably only getting 80% of the detail that's
>in the image. Furthermore, every time you save it back out as a JPEG,
>EVEN AT THE HIGHEST SETTING, you're only getting 80% of the detail in
>the first JPEG, which is already only 80% of what was in the
>uncompressed file. Also keep in mind that you can save a JPEG as a
>.psd, TIFF, or whatever, and it's still not any better than the
>original JPEG, and will continue to deteriorate if you re-save the
>image as a JPEG, even without editing it. Here's how it works:
>
>UNCOMPRESSED IMAGE (100% detail)
>
>JPEG at "10" setting (80% of original detail)
>
>SAVE AGAIN AS JPEG at "10" (80% of 80% which equals 64% of original
>detail)
>
>SAVE AS UNCOMPRESSED .PSD FILE (preserves all of the 64% detail you
>have left, but doesn't get you back any lost detail)
>
>SAVE AGAIN AS JPEG at "10" (80% of 64% which equals 51.2% detail)
>
>
>Anyway, I think you can see where this is going. The point I'm trying
>to make is this: Is 80% of the original detail "acceptable"? Sure,
>you probably won't even notice it. If you decide you REALLY want to
>edit your material and you don't mind a little drop in quality, is 64%
>"watchable"? Depends on your personal tastes, but for argument's sake
>I'll accept that. Thing is, now you've got footage that's 64% of what
>it once was sitting around. Say in a couple years, new equipment
>comes out that's backwards-compatible with the format your footage is
>in so it'll still play it, but even at 100% quality, it will show
>limitations of the recording medium (Hi8, whatever) you originally
>used. So with that information (that even 100% quality isn't gonna
>look so hot because it was recorded on older technology), is 64% still
>good enough? In fact, since you now only have 64%, are you really all
>that confident that you can still go back and edit if you want to? If
>100% will show its age on your new equipment, are you that sure that
>"because it's digital", going down to 51.2% isn't going to be
>noticeable???
>
>Now, if anyone still doesn't get what I'm saying here, find yourself a
>nice full-size VHS camcorder and stick with it -- you have no business
>with anything more advanced.
>
>Good day to you all.
October 27, 2004 10:36:45 PM

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

"PDTV" <pdtv_info@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2689a1aa.0410262248.4518dd51@posting.google.com...
> Thanks for backing me up here, but I think you're muddying the point
> further.
>

Muddying up the water, LOL That's a first for me.
I'll try and be more clear.
:) 


> I don't expect "consumers" to keep their footage in pristine quality
> -- they needn't use DV, or hi-def, or what have you. In fact, I'll
> say yet again that MPEG-2 is FINE as a storage format, and I archive
> PLENTY of stuff to MPEG-2 so I won't have to bother with VHS, and I
> don't even keep the original tapes in most cases.
>

Well, I always keep the original VHS and a prisine first generation digital
copy on DV tape as an archive.
This way you can put it on whatever new longer lasting media comes along.
The point should be to try and keep as much as the original detail as
possible for an archive since you can never get back any detail you throw
away, especially since people will all be watching hi def tv in the future.

> The fact remains that editing MPEG video and re-encoding into MPEG is
> very much like analog recording -- you're not only going to GET a kind
> of "generation loss
> ", it MULTIPLIES as you edit and re-edit.
>

I'm not sure I agree with that statement, since many mpeg editing software
now uses smart rendering techniques that only change a few seconds of video
before and after the edit points. So if you edit mpeg2 and add a title, only
the scene with the title will be affected etc.
Plus once you get down to mpeg2 level of compression, any re-compression
will basically remain the same since you can only get rid of so much
redundant data to begin with. It doesn't just start making the remain video
look bad, it analyses the video and only removes and compresses redundant
info. So an already compressed mpeg2 video will reamain an mpeg2 video if
you try and re-encode it the entire movie for some strange reason. It might
clean up any missed frames but should keep a good looking final picture
unless you ask it to compress it to a low bitrate (higher level of
compression) each time.

> Open up a .jpeg picture in a program like Photoshop. Looks fine,
> doesn't it? JPEG is a "lossy" compression scheme, but there's nothing
> wrong with the picture just because it's a JPEG, is there? Nope,
> looks fine, doesn't it? Now save that JPEG as another JPEG using
> quality setting 8, which is probably higher than what it was
> originally saved at (you can tell by whatever setting is already in
> the dialog box). Now, open the resulting file and take a look at it.
> Better yet, save that file again as yet another JPEG, also at the
> "High" (8) quality setting. It shouldn't take more that a couple
> iterations of this process for the picture to reach "unacceptable"
> quality, especially since you've seen the original JPEG that was
> probably saved from an uncompressed image.
>

Hmm, never actually did this test before, I'll try it today and see. I work
with jpg
all the time. If you choose a low quality compression right off the bat, you
will see bad artifacts in the image. However if you chose a high quality
setting, then open the image work on it a bit and save again, then again and
again, saving to high quality jpg setting each time, I don't see why the
compression algorithym would start messing up and introducing artifacts all
of a sudden. i believe it will continue to work as it is suppose to, just
saving at the quality level you selected and compressing to that level and
no more. It should introduce any artifacts that didn't get introduced the
first time it compressed to that level.

Maybe you're thinking print out the jpg and then scan it as a BMP image?
Then recompress it to JPG, then print it out and rescan it again as a BMP
and compress to JPG? Like that you will introduce new artifacts but that is
because you are starting out each time with a fresh BMP image with artifacts
and trying to compress it to the first level of compression etc.
But that would be like taking an AVI compressing to MPEG2 playing it on a
projection screen and videotaping the image and getting a new AVI and making
a new mpeg2, so not sure but the loss of detail would come from taping the
projected image and not so much from the recompression. I believe that if an
mpeg2 encoder processes an already encoded mpeg2 video file, it will change
nothing in that file if it is already encoded to that level of quality, just
the parts that have been edited and can use some cleaning up and removing of
redundant detail info.

> Now, you may ask, how can this be when every time you saved out a new
> JPEG, you chose the "High" quality setting? Look at it this way --
> even if you save an uncompressed image as a JPEG at the highest
> quality setting, you're probably only getting 80% of the detail that's
> in the image. Furthermore, every time you save it back out as a JPEG,
> EVEN AT THE HIGHEST SETTING, you're only getting 80% of the detail in
> the first JPEG, which is already only 80% of what was in the
> uncompressed file. Also keep in mind that you can save a JPEG as a
> .psd, TIFF, or whatever, and it's still not any better than the
> original JPEG, and will continue to deteriorate if you re-save the
> image as a JPEG, even without editing it. Here's how it works:
>
> UNCOMPRESSED IMAGE (100% detail)
>
> JPEG at "10" setting (80% of original detail)
>
> SAVE AGAIN AS JPEG at "10" (80% of 80% which equals 64% of original
> detail)
>
> SAVE AS UNCOMPRESSED .PSD FILE (preserves all of the 64% detail you
> have left, but doesn't get you back any lost detail)
>
> SAVE AGAIN AS JPEG at "10" (80% of 64% which equals 51.2% detail)
>
>

I think the math is wrong here, once the redundant data is gone, it's gone!
Any resaving to jpg or mpeg2 for that matter will not find any new redundant
data in the image file to remove.

Think of it like data compression, ok? you save a program into a zip file.
It is compressed, it removes redundant and unnecessary data from the
original file and compresses it for better storage size. That is all it can
do.
If you rezip it, you aren't going to keep getting the same amount of
compression over and over and start losing data.
No, it can only go to a certain point.
Same with encoding using smart rendering, it will maintain a certain level
of quality and after that can't compress any further no matter how many
times you ask it to resave in JPG or MPEG2.


> Anyway, I think you can see where this is going. The point I'm trying
> to make is this: Is 80% of the original detail "acceptable"? Sure,
> you probably won't even notice it. If you decide you REALLY want to
> edit your material and you don't mind a little drop in quality, is 64%
> "watchable"? Depends on your personal tastes, but for argument's sake
> I'll accept that. Thing is, now you've got footage that's 64% of what
> it once was sitting around. Say in a couple years, new equipment
> comes out that's backwards-compatible with the format your footage is
> in so it'll still play it, but even at 100% quality, it will show
> limitations of the recording medium (Hi8, whatever) you originally
> used. So with that information (that even 100% quality isn't gonna
> look so hot because it was recorded on older technology), is 64% still
> good enough? In fact, since you now only have 64%, are you really all
> that confident that you can still go back and edit if you want to? If
> 100% will show its age on your new equipment, are you that sure that
> "because it's digital", going down to 51.2% isn't going to be
> noticeable???
>

I would totally agree with that if I believed the math involved, but don't.

> Now, if anyone still doesn't get what I'm saying here, find yourself a
> nice full-size VHS camcorder and stick with it -- you have no business
> with anything more advanced.
>
> Good day to you all.

As technology progresses people will be editing with MPEG2 as their original
source material captured on high definition camcorders, according to you
they should stick to VHS, rather then edit in mpeg? I don't get the logic.

In my opinion removing redundant data is necessary now with high definition
camcorders more than before.
With DV, a stationary background had a large number of pixels that could be
compressed with MPEG but with new high definition consumer camcorders coming
out soon, the number of pixels required to be stored for that stationary
background is enormous, and storing all those millions of pixels for each
frame is a big waste of space, that is why intelligent compression schemes
are needed to detect redundant data and remove it. The key is removing only
redundant data, that's what I mean by intelligent encoders. If some file is
already done, no more redundant data to compress, there is nothing further
for the encoder to do, it shouldn't just do compression for the sake of
compression without analyzing the data!

I hope you can maybe understand this a bit better yourself, it will help you
accept technology and all its power and glory.
It can be used to make things better, if people aren't quick to compare it
to older technology and fear it.

AnthonyR.
October 27, 2004 10:43:51 PM

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

"John" <usenet@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:gsgvn0parpvka4qvup40ilnuuam9oi16ui@4ax.com...
> The info posted below sounds very authoritative, and leads to the
> conclusion that anyone who dares to make multi-generation edits is a
> fool who should be using primitive tools suited to his unwashed state.
>

I agree with this comment. :) 

> Unfortunately, it's the poster who's misinformed. Before anyone is
> misled into thinking any of this is true, try the experiment yourself.
>
> I made 6 generations of jpeg saves starting from a high-resolution
> jpg (from a Fuji 600 digicam), then trimmed the last generation in
> half and slid that half on top the first generation. On a good quality
> CRT display, running 1600x1280, zoomed 200%, there was NO visible
> difference between the first and sixth generation. YMMV, of course,
> but the content was reasonably appropriate to the test.
>

I haven't done it myself yet but agree with your findings.


> The OP makes an argument that sounds scholarly - 80 % degradation each
> time, multiplied out, leads to garbage quickly. His error is in not
> realizing that the algorithms don't work that way - the first
> compression will lose detail that it deems unnecessary. The following
> decompression will display a picture that's may indeed be missing 20%
> of its information. However, the next compression will be starting
> with a picture that has already been processed, and that compression
> step will find that it can complete its work without throwing away
> significant additional information.

When i made some comments about generation loss and quality loss I was
referring to analog tape.
Meaning that each time you made a copy of a copy new noise was introduced
into the mix on top of loss of detail etc..
And after a third or forth generation it was down hill fast, but I was NOT
referring to digital material.
In fact i was stating that when you convert analog footage into digital
material, even mpeg2 and then edit that material
you won't see the degree of generation loss you would expect in the analog
world aminly because of the points you just made. Thanks for clearing up the
math for me.

>
> TRY IT YOURSELF, and remember to not believe everything you read, even
> (especially?) when there are meaningful-sounding numbers scattered
> about.
>
> Now I too have taken liberties in making my point. I used the same
> software to go back and forth each time, so the same algorithms were
> used. Had I used different programs with different algorithms, there
> might be a chance that the algorithm designers would have taken
> different approaches, and additional details could have been lost as I
> went along. My personal experience says that's not a significant issue
> - the art is well developed and the algorithms tend follow the same
> rules - but I don't know that for a fact. Even when working with
> high-resolution still images, though, a far more critical environment
> than a movie, we've probably all observed that we can let our digicam
> do a jpg save, we can edit the image and do a second jpg save, and can
> still print an 8x10 or larger that we're proud of.
>
>

It makes total sense to me, and hopefully to PDTV and others who can read
this and understand what you said.
Have a nice day!

AnthonyR.


>
> pdtv_info@yahoo.com (PDTV) wrote:
>
>>Thanks for backing me up here, but I think you're muddying the point
>>further.
>>
>>I don't expect "consumers" to keep their footage in pristine quality
>>-- they needn't use DV, or hi-def, or what have you. In fact, I'll
>>say yet again that MPEG-2 is FINE as a storage format, and I archive
>>PLENTY of stuff to MPEG-2 so I won't have to bother with VHS, and I
>>don't even keep the original tapes in most cases.
>>
>>The fact remains that editing MPEG video and re-encoding into MPEG is
>>very much like analog recording -- you're not only going to GET a kind
>>of "generation loss
>>", it MULTIPLIES as you edit and re-edit.
>>
>>Open up a .jpeg picture in a program like Photoshop. Looks fine,
>>doesn't it? JPEG is a "lossy" compression scheme, but there's nothing
>>wrong with the picture just because it's a JPEG, is there? Nope,
>>looks fine, doesn't it? Now save that JPEG as another JPEG using
>>quality setting 8, which is probably higher than what it was
>>originally saved at (you can tell by whatever setting is already in
>>the dialog box). Now, open the resulting file and take a look at it.
>>Better yet, save that file again as yet another JPEG, also at the
>>"High" (8) quality setting. It shouldn't take more that a couple
>>iterations of this process for the picture to reach "unacceptable"
>>quality, especially since you've seen the original JPEG that was
>>probably saved from an uncompressed image.
>>
>>Now, you may ask, how can this be when every time you saved out a new
>>JPEG, you chose the "High" quality setting? Look at it this way --
>>even if you save an uncompressed image as a JPEG at the highest
>>quality setting, you're probably only getting 80% of the detail that's
>>in the image. Furthermore, every time you save it back out as a JPEG,
>>EVEN AT THE HIGHEST SETTING, you're only getting 80% of the detail in
>>the first JPEG, which is already only 80% of what was in the
>>uncompressed file. Also keep in mind that you can save a JPEG as a
>>.psd, TIFF, or whatever, and it's still not any better than the
>>original JPEG, and will continue to deteriorate if you re-save the
>>image as a JPEG, even without editing it. Here's how it works:
>>
>>UNCOMPRESSED IMAGE (100% detail)
>>
>>JPEG at "10" setting (80% of original detail)
>>
>>SAVE AGAIN AS JPEG at "10" (80% of 80% which equals 64% of original
>>detail)
>>
>>SAVE AS UNCOMPRESSED .PSD FILE (preserves all of the 64% detail you
>>have left, but doesn't get you back any lost detail)
>>
>>SAVE AGAIN AS JPEG at "10" (80% of 64% which equals 51.2% detail)
>>
>>
>>Anyway, I think you can see where this is going. The point I'm trying
>>to make is this: Is 80% of the original detail "acceptable"? Sure,
>>you probably won't even notice it. If you decide you REALLY want to
>>edit your material and you don't mind a little drop in quality, is 64%
>>"watchable"? Depends on your personal tastes, but for argument's sake
>>I'll accept that. Thing is, now you've got footage that's 64% of what
>>it once was sitting around. Say in a couple years, new equipment
>>comes out that's backwards-compatible with the format your footage is
>>in so it'll still play it, but even at 100% quality, it will show
>>limitations of the recording medium (Hi8, whatever) you originally
>>used. So with that information (that even 100% quality isn't gonna
>>look so hot because it was recorded on older technology), is 64% still
>>good enough? In fact, since you now only have 64%, are you really all
>>that confident that you can still go back and edit if you want to? If
>>100% will show its age on your new equipment, are you that sure that
>>"because it's digital", going down to 51.2% isn't going to be
>>noticeable???
>>
>>Now, if anyone still doesn't get what I'm saying here, find yourself a
>>nice full-size VHS camcorder and stick with it -- you have no business
>>with anything more advanced.
>>
>>Good day to you all.
>
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 4:35:36 AM

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

You're simply wrong. I never implied that those who edit compressed
formats are somehow inferior to me, and I have even said I do the same
thing when necessary. However, the repeated assertions that
compression schemes are "intelligent" and won't degrade an image
beyond a certain point lead me to believe that you all think computers
are "magic".

The fact of the matter is that every time you compress material, you
lose detail. There has not yet been a compression algorithm invented
that knows what information has already been thrown away already, and
can avoid worsening the picture quality by keeping more the next time
around. If this were the case, you would not find compression
artifacts in areas of solid color, but that happens all the time.

If you really want to test this theory, load a single-layer image into
Photoshop, use the "magic wand" tool to select an area of color that
appears black, and use the "Cut" command with the background color set
to black to make the whole selection area black. Next, go back into
your black area again and click with the "magic wand" tool. If the
uninformed opinion above were correct, the selection boundaries would
return to exactly where they were before, since you are selecting an
area that is now assumed to be all one color. Of course what REALLY
happens is that the selection goes nuts and grabs much more of the
image before, including areas that didn't fall within the selection
boundaries the first time.

How can this be, you ask? Why would the magic wand grab areas of the
photo the second time around that it didn't bother with the first
time? Well, the reason for this is that it has no idea what you
selected the first time. It's just looking for areas that are close
enough (within the specified tolerances) to the color directly under
the pointer to include in the selection area. The first time you
selected an area that looked black, it went through and grabbed
everything that was close enough to black, and once you performed the
"Cut" command, that area became all black. The second time around the
tolerances didn't change, but it selected a much larger area --
probably almost the entire image. The reason for this is that it is
still looking for colors within a certain tolerance, and once the
detail was removed by the "Cut" command, the overall variance in color
within the image dropped. Therefore, there was much more of the image
that fell within the tolerances the "magic wand" tool was looking for.

The same thing happens when you compress an image, still or moving.
What was a strong enough detail to be retained the first time may not
be so the second time, and so on. Eventually, you end up with a
blurry or macroblocked mess that only vaguely resembles the original
image. When you compress an image you change it, and further
compression is applied to that altered image, not the original one.
You can apply a filter in Photoshop, "Undo" it, then re-apply it and
get exactly the same result (bar any randomization inherent to the
filter's algorithm), but if you continue applying the same filter, the
image continues to change until it is totally obscured. Compression
via JPEG or MPEG is exactly like applying a filter. No matter how
many times it's been applied before, it never stops altering the
image. There is no way for it to know what information has been
tossed out before, and detail that was retained the first time could
be lost upon re-compression. That's just the way compression works.

So, to coin a phrase, I'm not talking out of my ass here. My
assertions are based upon fact and personal experience, not what might
be convenient. People will continue to believe they can keep editing
MPEG-2 video as often as necessary until one day they can't tell if
that's Aunt Martha in the background or Uncle Fred. Then, the
education of the so-called "unwashed masses" will have begun. I have
no personal interest in making people use DV instead of MPEG, I'm just
trying to keep people from making an irreversible mistake.

Class dismissed.
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 4:43:52 AM

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

"AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote in message news:<H%Rfd.35076$4C.9165962@twister.nyc.rr.com>...

> In fact i was stating that when you convert analog footage into digital
> material, even mpeg2 and then edit that material
> you won't see the degree of generation loss you would expect in the analog
> world aminly because of the points you just made.

You're a fool. I realize you've been told that digital copies do not
degrade like analog ones do, and on the surface that's true. Make a
perfect digital clone of a DVD or CD and it's exactly the same as the
source. However, once compression enters into the picture that's no
longer the case. I can copy an .mp3 file called "audio.mp3" and "Copy
of audio.mp3" will be exactly the same. However, if I load the same
..mp3 file into a program like CoolEdit (or any software capable of
creating .mp3 files) and save it out as another .mp3, even at maximum
quality, there will still be generation loss. Do the same thing
enough times and it will become apparent all too quickly.
October 29, 2004 10:41:21 PM

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

PDTV, That's what I am talking about, in my own personal experience, not
what I have been told.
When editing using analog video tapes and a pair of vcr's back in the day,
if you tried to do an effect that required a few layers, you had to do one
effect at a time, and keep using the next generation vhs tape to do the
third and so on, after a few copies, the whole image was pretty bad.
But, now with digital, even in mpeg2 compressed digital, you aren't
re-encoding the entire footage any longer only the parts that are being
edited might show some re-compression loss, so what, the few split seconds
during a title will have some blockiness? In home editing, aunt Jude or
whoever will never notice that. Where as in editing with vhs, the whole
finished product looked pretty bad to everyone.

That's all I am talking about. one or two simple edits, and even a re-edit
of compressed footage will still leave a very viewable final product. Is
that so hard to understand?

AnthonyR.


"PDTV" <pdtv_info@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2689a1aa.0410282343.655d135a@posting.google.com...
> "AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote in message
> news:<H%Rfd.35076$4C.9165962@twister.nyc.rr.com>...
>
>> In fact i was stating that when you convert analog footage into digital
>> material, even mpeg2 and then edit that material
>> you won't see the degree of generation loss you would expect in the
>> analog
>> world aminly because of the points you just made.
>
> You're a fool. I realize you've been told that digital copies do not
> degrade like analog ones do, and on the surface that's true. Make a
> perfect digital clone of a DVD or CD and it's exactly the same as the
> source. However, once compression enters into the picture that's no
> longer the case. I can copy an .mp3 file called "audio.mp3" and "Copy
> of audio.mp3" will be exactly the same. However, if I load the same
> .mp3 file into a program like CoolEdit (or any software capable of
> creating .mp3 files) and save it out as another .mp3, even at maximum
> quality, there will still be generation loss. Do the same thing
> enough times and it will become apparent all too quickly.
October 29, 2004 10:50:51 PM

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

"PDTV" <pdtv_info@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2689a1aa.0410282335.10409b06@posting.google.com...
> The fact of the matter is that every time you compress material, you
> lose detail. There has not yet been a compression algorithm invented
> that knows what information has already been thrown away already, and
> can avoid worsening the picture quality by keeping more the next time
> around. If this were the case, you would not find compression
> artifacts in areas of solid color, but that happens all the time.
>
Maybe so, but you're not re-compressing the entire file every time you edit
it now, are you?
No, the editing keeps all the original compression in tact, it doesn't
re-compress it further or re-encode again or anything that you're talking
about.
Smart encoding, is when an editing software retains the original mpeg2 info
and does the edit only re-encoding the few frames in an incomplete Group Of
Pictures. Less than a blink of an eye's worth of material.
The rest is done digitally on a time line.

So if you wanted 7 layers of effects, it can be done in one quick shot with
limited re-encoding.
Where in an analog 2 VCR dubbing type deal, you would need 7 dubs, many
generation loss.

So in that sense digital editing, even with mpeg2 compressed footage will
look better than the many generations
required to do that effect without a digital Non-Linear editing station. No?

And how much more reediting does some home footage need anyway? Capturing
and editing in MPEG-2 is fine for home users. Like I said, I use miniDV
myself, but just wanted people to know not to be so scared to buy and use
camcorders that compress to mpeg for home use because you said it they will
not be able to edit their work!

End of Class? What are we 6?
LOL

Have a Nice Day, :) 
AnthonyR.
Anonymous
October 30, 2004 12:26:49 AM

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

"AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote in message
news:l9wgd.181720$4h7.34795386@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> PDTV, That's what I am talking about, in my own personal experience, not
> what I have been told.
> When editing using analog video tapes and a pair of vcr's back in the day,
> if you tried to do an effect that required a few layers, you had to do one
> effect at a time, and keep using the next generation vhs tape to do the
> third and so on, after a few copies, the whole image was pretty bad.
> But, now with digital, even in mpeg2 compressed digital, you aren't
> re-encoding the entire footage any longer only the parts that are being
> edited might show some re-compression loss, so what, the few split seconds
> during a title will have some blockiness? In home editing, aunt Jude or
> whoever will never notice that. Where as in editing with vhs, the whole
> finished product looked pretty bad to everyone.
>
> That's all I am talking about. one or two simple edits, and even a re-edit
> of compressed footage will still leave a very viewable final product. Is
> that so hard to understand?
>
Actually, if you had a big enough facility you could do quite a bit in
one pass (many decks, big switcher, multiple effects boxes, etc.).

1" actually held up pretty well for a few generations, but none of the
1/2" formats were much good for multiple generations (VHS, S-VHS,
Betamax, even Betacam SP). Betacam SPis not too bad if you keep
the generation count low (maybe as much as 4 or 5, depending on how
good your facility is maintained, and the quality of the original material.)
Digital Betacam is much better though.

The big deal about Non-linear, and compositing programs, is that you
can do an awful lot on a single timeline, and that often only counts as
one generation of recompression. So, it will hold up better than the
most expensive linear suites, as long as you keep the compression
low. DV is pretty compressed right out of the camera, so you might
see artifacts in a couple generations (if you look close).

David
October 30, 2004 1:04:00 AM

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

"PDTV" <pdtv_info@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2689a1aa.0410282335.10409b06@posting.google.com...
> The fact of the matter is that every time you compress material, you
> lose detail. There has not yet been a compression algorithm invented
> that knows what information has already been thrown away already, and
> can avoid worsening the picture quality by keeping more the next time
> around. If this were the case, you would not find compression
> artifacts in areas of solid color, but that happens all the time.
>
> If you really want to test this theory, yiada yiada....
>Removed more non sensible tests<
> Class dismissed.

I just thought of a real world situation to describe just how little
generation loss and artifacts are actually added by real world mpeg2 use.
I have a friend who receives tv signal's from dishTV, being a satellite
image it is already compressed using a form of mpeg2 to save bandwidth
coming to your home over the air, he then records his tv shows on a separate
older tivo box, so he is definitely re-encoding the already mpeg2 image a
second time onto a hard drive in the tivo.
He then records that tivo show onto a separate standalone DVD Recorder,
which guess what is re-compressing a video image for the third time using
mpeg2, ok? Now he takes that dvd disk, rips it onto his computer hard drive,
edits out the commercials and saves again to mpeg2, then imports that into a
different dvd authoring software to give it titles and chapter points, I
assume it re-encodes the entire video since it's adding new chapter points.

So what is that, like 3 or 4 or 5 times the same video images have been
saved over and over using different mpeg2 encoders, some in software, some
in hardware?
The finished DVD Video looks no worse than it did from his tivo. If he used
higher settings it probably would look as good as his satellite image but he
uses standard in tivo which gives him more space.

This is a real world use of mpeg2 applied to a practical setting of home use
and edited and still you have a viewable picture.

Now what was the question of the OP? Oh yeah Best format for archiving.
The Best! is NOT mpeg2, I never said it was the BEST!
But someone asked about the quality and it is certainly acceptable.

:) 
AnthonyR.
October 30, 2004 2:10:12 AM

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

"david.mccall" <david.mccallUNDERLINE@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:D Ixgd.544452$8_6.325106@attbi_s04...
>
> "AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote in message
> news:l9wgd.181720$4h7.34795386@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>> PDTV, That's what I am talking about, in my own personal experience, not
>> what I have been told.
>> When editing using analog video tapes and a pair of vcr's back in the
>> day, if you tried to do an effect that required a few layers, you had to
>> do one effect at a time, and keep using the next generation vhs tape to
>> do the third and so on, after a few copies, the whole image was pretty
>> bad.
>> But, now with digital, even in mpeg2 compressed digital, you aren't
>> re-encoding the entire footage any longer only the parts that are being
>> edited might show some re-compression loss, so what, the few split
>> seconds during a title will have some blockiness? In home editing, aunt
>> Jude or whoever will never notice that. Where as in editing with vhs, the
>> whole finished product looked pretty bad to everyone.
>>
>> That's all I am talking about. one or two simple edits, and even a
>> re-edit of compressed footage will still leave a very viewable final
>> product. Is that so hard to understand?
>>
> Actually, if you had a big enough facility you could do quite a bit in
> one pass (many decks, big switcher, multiple effects boxes, etc.).
>
> 1" actually held up pretty well for a few generations, but none of the
> 1/2" formats were much good for multiple generations (VHS, S-VHS,
> Betamax, even Betacam SP). Betacam SPis not too bad if you keep
> the generation count low (maybe as much as 4 or 5, depending on how
> good your facility is maintained, and the quality of the original
> material.)
> Digital Betacam is much better though.
>
> The big deal about Non-linear, and compositing programs, is that you
> can do an awful lot on a single timeline, and that often only counts as
> one generation of recompression. So, it will hold up better than the
> most expensive linear suites, as long as you keep the compression
> low. DV is pretty compressed right out of the camera, so you might
> see artifacts in a couple generations (if you look close).
>
> David
>

David,
I agree totally with everything you just said!
But I was only referring to a home user editing his family video's, asking
whether mpeg2 would be ok for archiving.
And I was thinking about how new camcorders now already compress to mpeg2
and how there are new software editing titles and plugin's that allow
editing directly on mpeg2 now and smart render, meaning only r-encode the
transitions.
I said this is acceptable for home use and was comparing it to vhs which was
widely also used for home use and archival a few years ago.
Of course in a professional setting with a studio, no one would use 1/2 tape
such as VHS for multiple passes but it was basically all that was available
at the time to home users and hobbyists.
Now home users have much better quality other vhs no matter what digital
format they choose.
Again, I agree with your summary. :) 
AnthonyR.
Anonymous
October 30, 2004 8:35:36 AM

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

In article <eYBgd.181734$4h7.34897337@twister.nyc.rr.com>,
"AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> writes:
>
> "Martin Heffels" <tguei221@handbag.com> wrote in message
> news:2lj5o0l8aom2nkpakphrr156p0sd5aav3f@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 20:26:49 GMT, "david.mccall"
>> <david.mccallUNDERLINE@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>DV is pretty compressed right out of the camera, so you might
>>>see artifacts in a couple generations (if you look close).
>>
>> So, edit it in uncompressed format, and the pain will be less :) 
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> -martin-
>>
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> I just had to reply quickly to this, DV is compressed 5 to 1 in the camera,
> true. I don't know if someone can see these artifacts? To me the image from
> my dv camcorder looks great even after I compress it another 100x to mpeg2.
> Sure I can pause on a frame and start to examine where some pixel info was
> removed.
>
There are two significant levels 'artifacting' with DV (I know, I
have played with it), the first and most common level are the common
DV25 artifacts. You'll sometimes get stairstepping and other pseudo-aliasing
artifacts (actually, it is a kind of aliasing) along with mosquitos, depending
upon how much detail you are trying to record.

The other kind of artifact mostly appears when you try to record/playback
a signal that isn't pristine (the signal from a good CCD array is usually
fairly clean.) Video noise isn't very pleasant for DV25 to deal with, and
the signal gets ugly when trying to DV25 record a noisy video signal with
significant detail. So, DV25 actually further degrades a noisy video signal,
significantly worse than an analog recording format might do. The
kind of 'smoothing' that occurs when using DV25 from a noisy video format
is ugly.

DV25 not being able to deal very well with video noise is one reason why
composite video should be very nicely decoded with a 3D comb, and noise
reduction (like using a Canopus ADVC300) should be used when recording
from SVHS/VHS onto DV25.

Off topic: on the other hand, DV50 is very robust, and it can deal almost
perfectly with noisy video sources. It probably seems like a waste to use
a premium format to record a noisy (probably cheap) video source.

John
Anonymous
October 30, 2004 1:16:21 PM

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

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 20:26:49 GMT, "david.mccall"
<david.mccallUNDERLINE@comcast.net> wrote:

>DV is pretty compressed right out of the camera, so you might
>see artifacts in a couple generations (if you look close).

So, edit it in uncompressed format, and the pain will be less :) 

cheers

-martin-

--
Can the terror of spam be included in the war on terror?
October 30, 2004 1:16:22 PM

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

"Martin Heffels" <tguei221@handbag.com> wrote in message
news:2lj5o0l8aom2nkpakphrr156p0sd5aav3f@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 20:26:49 GMT, "david.mccall"
> <david.mccallUNDERLINE@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>DV is pretty compressed right out of the camera, so you might
>>see artifacts in a couple generations (if you look close).
>
> So, edit it in uncompressed format, and the pain will be less :) 
>
> cheers
>
> -martin-
>

Hi Martin,

I just had to reply quickly to this, DV is compressed 5 to 1 in the camera,
true. I don't know if someone can see these artifacts? To me the image from
my dv camcorder looks great even after I compress it another 100x to mpeg2.
Sure I can pause on a frame and start to examine where some pixel info was
removed.

But I don't see how editing a clear DV Camcorder image in uncompressed
format will result in any less pain.
The best part of editing in dv is the faster handling of the compressed
files, lot less pain for me than uncompressed.
But then again everyone has a different pain threshold and even an artifact
threshold.

You know what I find more annoying most of all with digital video, more than
artifacts and more than blockiness?
It's digital freeze!!! Breakup that occurs while watching digital cable
every now and then, that is PAIN.
And no matter what quality the producers used in producing the program, it's
the final delivery medium that counts most of all in the viewers enjoyment.
So for most of us, that is DVD, which is great until it freezes or skips,
LOL
Digital cable which is great also until the digital breakup acts up, or
analog broadcast which is great if you have a good antenna and live near a
major city, but it's days are numbered before they are forced to go all
digital, so there will be more breakup and freeze on the way for all. That
is pain that editing in uncompressed just can't help.

AnthonyR.
Anonymous
October 30, 2004 5:57:21 PM

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

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 01:16:58 GMT, "AnthonyR"
<toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote:

>I just had to reply quickly to this, DV is compressed 5 to 1 in the camera,
>true. I don't know if someone can see these artifacts? To me the image from
>my dv camcorder looks great even after I compress it another 100x to mpeg2.
>Sure I can pause on a frame and start to examine where some pixel info was
>removed.

It depends on what you do with your material. You're right, for 90% of
the people, dv-compression is fine. But if you're going to enter the
domain of low-budget filmmaking (shoot 16mm, TK to mini-DV), you're
likely to run into nasty surprises if you want to do a tape-to-tape
grade. The DV-codec falls into a gazillion pieces if you push it too
far, and especially with material which is noisy.

>But I don't see how editing a clear DV Camcorder image in uncompressed
>format will result in any less pain.

It depends on what you want to do with your material. The lower the
compression, the more bits you use while doing fancy-schmancy things,
the better your end-results will be when you go back to mastering on
mini-dv. But I'm nitpicking. We professionals sometimes too easily
forget that Joe Blow usually has much lower standards than us.

>The best part of editing in dv is the faster handling of the compressed
>files, lot less pain for me than uncompressed.

Yes. But hardware becomes faster and faster. With the standard 160GB
SATA-drive in the Mac G5 at work, I can easily do uncompressed 8-bit
SD work. 10-bits is possible, but if the drive gets too full, it will
result in dropped frames. Oh, it will depend on the complexity of the
work, the more layers and filters, the less my above statement will be
true ;-)

>But then again everyone has a different pain threshold and even an artifact
>threshold.

LOL. Very true.

>You know what I find more annoying most of all with digital video, more than
>artifacts and more than blockiness?
>It's digital freeze!!! Breakup that occurs while watching digital cable
>every now and then, that is PAIN.

Ah yes, that's terrible.

>And no matter what quality the producers used in producing the program, it's
>the final delivery medium that counts most of all in the viewers enjoyment.
>So for most of us, that is DVD, which is great until it freezes or skips,
>LOL

Yar. My flatemate has this ancient DVD-player, which stumbles over
every speck of dust :( 

>Digital cable which is great also until the digital breakup acts up, or
>analog broadcast which is great if you have a good antenna and live near a
>major city, but it's days are numbered before they are forced to go all
>digital, so there will be more breakup and freeze on the way for all. That
>is pain that editing in uncompressed just can't help.

The advantage of analogue is that you at least still can see something
if the signal degrades.

cheers

-martin-

--
Can the terror of spam be included in the war on terror?
October 30, 2004 9:47:59 PM

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

"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
news:clv5mo$2n5t$2@news.iquest.net...
> In article <eYBgd.181734$4h7.34897337@twister.nyc.rr.com>,
> "AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> writes:
>>
>> "Martin Heffels" <tguei221@handbag.com> wrote in message
>> news:2lj5o0l8aom2nkpakphrr156p0sd5aav3f@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 20:26:49 GMT, "david.mccall"
>>> <david.mccallUNDERLINE@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>DV is pretty compressed right out of the camera, so you might
>>>>see artifacts in a couple generations (if you look close).
>>>
>>> So, edit it in uncompressed format, and the pain will be less :) 
>>>
>>> cheers
>>>
>>> -martin-
>>>
>>
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> I just had to reply quickly to this, DV is compressed 5 to 1 in the
>> camera,
>> true. I don't know if someone can see these artifacts? To me the image
>> from
>> my dv camcorder looks great even after I compress it another 100x to
>> mpeg2.
>> Sure I can pause on a frame and start to examine where some pixel info
>> was
>> removed.
>>
> There are two significant levels 'artifacting' with DV (I know, I
> have played with it), the first and most common level are the common
> DV25 artifacts. You'll sometimes get stairstepping and other
> pseudo-aliasing
> artifacts (actually, it is a kind of aliasing) along with mosquitos,
> depending
> upon how much detail you are trying to record.
>
> The other kind of artifact mostly appears when you try to record/playback
> a signal that isn't pristine (the signal from a good CCD array is usually
> fairly clean.) Video noise isn't very pleasant for DV25 to deal with, and
> the signal gets ugly when trying to DV25 record a noisy video signal with
> significant detail. So, DV25 actually further degrades a noisy video
> signal,
> significantly worse than an analog recording format might do. The
> kind of 'smoothing' that occurs when using DV25 from a noisy video format
> is ugly.
>
> DV25 not being able to deal very well with video noise is one reason why
> composite video should be very nicely decoded with a 3D comb, and noise
> reduction (like using a Canopus ADVC300) should be used when recording
> from SVHS/VHS onto DV25.
>
> Off topic: on the other hand, DV50 is very robust, and it can deal almost
> perfectly with noisy video sources. It probably seems like a waste to use
> a premium format to record a noisy (probably cheap) video source.
>
> John
>

John,
Thanks for the post, it is clearly written and makes sense.
I agree and have never used DV 50 equipment but understand why it is better
for PRO work.
I have noticed the artifacts when capturing analog into DV25 and is the
reason I purchased a ADVC300
from Canopus to remove noise before capturing analog into DV25.
I guess it could be used to go directly into a 1394 port of a standalone dvd
recorder since a clean
analog signal would compress better directly to mpeg2 also. I haven't tried
my ADVC300 for that yet.
I usually edit in DV25 and then encode to Mpeg2 for dvd disc.
Thanks again,
AnthonyR.
October 30, 2004 9:59:16 PM

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

"Martin Heffels" <tguei221@handbag.com> wrote in message
news:0m36o0lchm3putrb0dteu34rr83ik2i9lq@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 01:16:58 GMT, "AnthonyR"
> <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote:
>
>>I just had to reply quickly to this, DV is compressed 5 to 1 in the
>>camera,
>>true. I don't know if someone can see these artifacts? To me the image
>>from
>>my dv camcorder looks great even after I compress it another 100x to
>>mpeg2.
>>Sure I can pause on a frame and start to examine where some pixel info was
>>removed.
>
> It depends on what you do with your material. You're right, for 90% of
> the people, dv-compression is fine. But if you're going to enter the
> domain of low-budget filmmaking (shoot 16mm, TK to mini-DV), you're
> likely to run into nasty surprises if you want to do a tape-to-tape
> grade. The DV-codec falls into a gazillion pieces if you push it too
> far, and especially with material which is noisy.
>
>>But I don't see how editing a clear DV Camcorder image in uncompressed
>>format will result in any less pain.
>
> It depends on what you want to do with your material. The lower the
> compression, the more bits you use while doing fancy-schmancy things,
> the better your end-results will be when you go back to mastering on
> mini-dv. But I'm nitpicking. We professionals sometimes too easily
> forget that Joe Blow usually has much lower standards than us.
>
>>The best part of editing in dv is the faster handling of the compressed
>>files, lot less pain for me than uncompressed.
>
> Yes. But hardware becomes faster and faster. With the standard 160GB
> SATA-drive in the Mac G5 at work, I can easily do uncompressed 8-bit
> SD work. 10-bits is possible, but if the drive gets too full, it will
> result in dropped frames. Oh, it will depend on the complexity of the
> work, the more layers and filters, the less my above statement will be
> true ;-)
>
>>But then again everyone has a different pain threshold and even an
>>artifact
>>threshold.
>
> LOL. Very true.
>
>>You know what I find more annoying most of all with digital video, more
>>than
>>artifacts and more than blockiness?
>>It's digital freeze!!! Breakup that occurs while watching digital cable
>>every now and then, that is PAIN.
>
> Ah yes, that's terrible.
>
>>And no matter what quality the producers used in producing the program,
>>it's
>>the final delivery medium that counts most of all in the viewers
>>enjoyment.
>>So for most of us, that is DVD, which is great until it freezes or skips,
>>LOL
>
> Yar. My flatemate has this ancient DVD-player, which stumbles over
> every speck of dust :( 
>
>>Digital cable which is great also until the digital breakup acts up, or
>>analog broadcast which is great if you have a good antenna and live near a
>>major city, but it's days are numbered before they are forced to go all
>>digital, so there will be more breakup and freeze on the way for all. That
>>is pain that editing in uncompressed just can't help.
>
> The advantage of analogue is that you at least still can see something
> if the signal degrades.
>
> cheers
>
> -martin-
>
> --
> Can the terror of spam be included in the war on terror?

Martin,
Thanks so much for the taking the time to write that informative and
intelligent reply.
I never said to anyone on this group I was a PRO or doing any work which
required absolute perfection
of the analog video signal, I always said I edit home movies and do some
weddings here and there, which I always get lots of praise for. It isn't
easy doing both the camera work and the editing, sound, graphics, final
production etc.. but I enjoy it as a hobby.
I feel I can learn much from the pro's on these forums and always appreciate
good advice.

Sometimes people try and dismiss the ways that hobbyists or home users do
things as wrong.
And I am glad to see you understand that, Joe Blow (as you put it) does have
lower standards.

I also understand that an image that looks good on 13" set shows much more
noise on a 55"set, and so something done for an amateur film would need to
have as best resolution and picture as possible in case it needs to be blown
up to a movie screen size.
I seriously doubt any of my home movies or weddings will ever be shown on a
big screen, LOL
At least not the one's I am doing at the moment, so I personally am happy
using my miniDV equipment
and editing in DV-AVI and maybe even mpeg2, lol after PDTV convinced me,
just joking.
But thanks again for the comments, I appreciate them.

I have gone thru so many dvd players to try and find one that doesn't
stumble over every spec of dust myself, tell your flatmate, it appears the
cheap Taiwanese brands do the job better than the expensive older ones
easily.

AnthonyR.
Anonymous
October 31, 2004 5:54:34 AM

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

In article <UDQgd.181762$4h7.35122533@twister.nyc.rr.com>, AnthonyR says...

Hi Anthony

>I never said to anyone on this group I was a PRO or doing any work which
>required absolute perfection of the analog video signal,

I never heard you saying that you were a pro :) 

>Sometimes people try and dismiss the ways that hobbyists or home users do
>things as wrong.
>And I am glad to see you understand that, Joe Blow (as you put it) does have
>lower standards.

Mind you, I said most Joe Blows have much lower standards that professionals.
I know plenty of serious amateurs who try to maintain high standards with the
limited tools they have at their disposal!

>I also understand that an image that looks good on 13" set shows much more
>noise on a 55"set, and so something done for an amateur film would need to
>have as best resolution and picture as possible in case it needs to be blown
>up to a movie screen size.

Non-debatable :) 

>I seriously doubt any of my home movies or weddings will ever be shown on a
>big screen, LOL

Ah well, more and more people start buying projectors for their home-theaters,
so it might be wise with this in the back of your mind, to keep your standards
as high as possible, so your clinets will still admire your work, even after 10
years, when they can finally blow it up to a bigger size.

>I have gone thru so many dvd players to try and find one that doesn't
>stumble over every spec of dust myself, tell your flatmate, it appears the
>cheap Taiwanese brands do the job better than the expensive older ones
>easily.

I heard many positive things in this group about a certain Philips player,
DVP642 or some similar type. But I have been looking for it some time ago, and
it wasn't available at that time here in Australia, but might be now.

cheers

-martin-


--
My e-mail address is a frequently changing random one to pollute spammer's
databases. I all encourage you to do the same :) 
Anonymous
November 7, 2004 11:30:19 PM

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

"AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote in message news:<GvPid.117729$Ot3.13294@twister.nyc.rr.com>...

> Why would I disregard the original DVD's?
> They are the archives! Duh.... digital and easy to store. they are the
> archives!
> If I were to keep editing them down over and over like the jerk you think I
> am, then I deserve to have a bad image left.
> So your point is worthless also.

That IS my point. Either you need to keep editing or you don't. If
you're "keeping the archives" you don't need to edit. If you're
editing, you're doing it for a reason. Often, that reason is that you
don't want five discs of stuff you don't want lying around, so you
consolidate it into just one, then you discard the original five.

It's pretty simple, but then again, so are you.
!