Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

DVD camcorder or MiniDV?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
October 23, 2004 1:49:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Hello

I am in the market for a family-oriented (vacations, birthday parties,
etc) Camcorder and am looking for input on whether DVD or MiniDV is
the better option.

I WILL be doing video editing on the home computer. In addition, I am
looking for the longest battery life possible.

Budget is no more than $800 for the camera itself.

A quick look at the top sellers for both are

(DVD) Sony DCR-DVD201

(MiniDV) Sony DCR-HC20/HC40

any info is appreciated

thanks

More about : dvd camcorder minidv

October 23, 2004 5:12:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Bill,

If your home computer is up to the task (and this is a big if which I will
expand upon below), I would opt for the DV tape format rather than record
directly onto disk. My reasoning is as follows:

1. The mpeg2 encoders found in DVD camcorders which do real-time encoding to
the disk are generally weak, leaving artifacts which become especially
apparent when you use the longer recording times.

2. The inherent recording capacity of a miniDV tape is nominally 10 times as
great as that of a mini DVD disk used in the DVD camcorders, thus capturing
considerably more raw detail on the tape.

3. The minDV tape is ultimately more precisely edited, since it contains far
less compressed video and has a linear format with respect to time base.
This makes for extremely precise edits and lessens the opportunity for time
base issues like lip synch errors to appear later in the editing process.

4. The media (miniDV tape) is less expensive.

5. The miniDV camcorders and tapes have been around for nearly a decade and
are reliable and very mature. The camcorders themselves typically have more
features per dollar than the DVD style and there are a wider variety offered
as well.

Having made these points (and there are certainly good arguments to be made
for the opposing choice as well), I want to briefly qualify the editing
computer issue mentioned above.

Your home computer, in order to do good editing on miniDV (tapes) which
contain avi files, requires quite a bit of disk space for editing, typically
50 to 100 GB would be recommended at a minimum, since these files are about
22 GB per hour of recording. The home computer needs a fast processor (at
least a couple gigahertz), a half a gig of RAM or more, and a relative;y
fast I/O capability. The editing software for doing avi editing is extremely
mature and stable, and ranges from shareware to some very nice high end
predicts costing hundreds or even thousands. This format is, after all, what
professionals use rather than editing mpeg2 files directly off a DVD.

I and others would be glad to elaborate and help you make specific editing
and authoring choices when you get to that stage.

One final caution..........if you are someone looking for fast, simple, and
basic........and are not really anxious to get into the more complex
computer and editing approach I am proposing, then I would look for a simple
DVD camcorder with the approach that a little editing on the computer and
within the camcorder may be enough.

Also....as regards camcorders in general......I have personally owned many
over the years and keep coming back to Sony brand stuff despite occasional
Canon, Panasonic, and other alternatives. I am not surprised that Sony still
has "top selling" status in these areas based on your comment, and would buy
another Sony without hesitation. Now if they would just drop the price of
their new HD camcorder from $3700 a wee bit..............

Smarty


"Bill" <3726414@spamhole.com> wrote in message
news:6eac4d8d.0410230849.7367bf4c@posting.google.com...
> Hello
>
> I am in the market for a family-oriented (vacations, birthday parties,
> etc) Camcorder and am looking for input on whether DVD or MiniDV is
> the better option.
>
> I WILL be doing video editing on the home computer. In addition, I am
> looking for the longest battery life possible.
>
> Budget is no more than $800 for the camera itself.
>
> A quick look at the top sellers for both are
>
> (DVD) Sony DCR-DVD201
>
> (MiniDV) Sony DCR-HC20/HC40
>
> any info is appreciated
>
> thanks
Anonymous
October 23, 2004 5:47:22 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Smarty wrote:
> Bill,
>
<snip>
> Your home computer, in order to do good editing on miniDV (tapes) which
> contain avi files, requires quite a bit of disk space for editing, typically
> 50 to 100 GB would be recommended at a minimum, since these files are about
> 22 GB per hour of recording. The home computer needs a fast processor (at
> least a couple gigahertz), a half a gig of RAM or more, and a relative;y
> fast I/O capability. The editing software for doing avi editing is extremely
> mature and stable, and ranges from shareware to some very nice high end
> predicts costing hundreds or even thousands. This format is, after all, what
> professionals use rather than editing mpeg2 files directly off a DVD.

Although these are good recommendations for a video editing system, they
are by no means the minimum requirements. For example, I started out
serious video editing with an 800 MHz cpu and only 256 MB RAM. Of
course, I have a much more capable system now, and that speeds up the
job of editing quite a bit.

The only performance requirement you really need to be concerned about
is your hard drive. Check the required drive rotational speed and
transfer rate for the software you will use. [That info is available
from a variety of web sites.] If you have a fairly new desktop computer,
you probably needn't worry, but some laptops and older computers aren't
up to the task.

BTW: A miniDV tape contains a DV data stream, not avi files. If you
capture the data to a Windows computer, you will most likely store it in
an avi file. Other platforms use different file types. But you don't
need to worry about that.
Related resources
Anonymous
October 23, 2004 9:26:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

If you plan on editing your video on a computer, go with mini-DV. If you just
want disks to play on your TV, and that is all you are ever going to do with
your video, the disk is probably OK. It isn't like you can't edit these disks,
but like someone else says, the on-the-fly MPEG2 encoders of these DVD
camcorders is certainly not as clean as mini-DV.

"Bill" <3726414@spamhole.com> wrote in message
news:6eac4d8d.0410230849.7367bf4c@posting.google.com...
> Hello
>
> I am in the market for a family-oriented (vacations, birthday parties,
> etc) Camcorder and am looking for input on whether DVD or MiniDV is
> the better option.
>
> I WILL be doing video editing on the home computer. In addition, I am
> looking for the longest battery life possible.
>
> Budget is no more than $800 for the camera itself.
>
> A quick look at the top sellers for both are
>
> (DVD) Sony DCR-DVD201
>
> (MiniDV) Sony DCR-HC20/HC40
>
> any info is appreciated
>
> thanks
October 23, 2004 11:56:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I agree with Ed that the DV tape does not, strictly speaking, contain an avi
file. The avi file format is a Windows concept, with very specific file
format (actually Type 1 and Type 2 formats) which the camcorder does not
inherently know or use. The capture device and its' driver need to know how
to build an avi file during the transfer of the camcorder data using
whatever operating system support is provided.

Smarty


"Ed Anson" <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MvednYImZ_y3BOfcRVn-pA@comcast.com...
> Smarty wrote:
>> Bill,
>>
> <snip>
>> Your home computer, in order to do good editing on miniDV (tapes) which
>> contain avi files, requires quite a bit of disk space for editing,
>> typically 50 to 100 GB would be recommended at a minimum, since these
>> files are about 22 GB per hour of recording. The home computer needs a
>> fast processor (at least a couple gigahertz), a half a gig of RAM or
>> more, and a relative;y fast I/O capability. The editing software for
>> doing avi editing is extremely mature and stable, and ranges from
>> shareware to some very nice high end predicts costing hundreds or even
>> thousands. This format is, after all, what professionals use rather than
>> editing mpeg2 files directly off a DVD.
>
> Although these are good recommendations for a video editing system, they
> are by no means the minimum requirements. For example, I started out
> serious video editing with an 800 MHz cpu and only 256 MB RAM. Of course,
> I have a much more capable system now, and that speeds up the job of
> editing quite a bit.
>
> The only performance requirement you really need to be concerned about is
> your hard drive. Check the required drive rotational speed and transfer
> rate for the software you will use. [That info is available from a variety
> of web sites.] If you have a fairly new desktop computer, you probably
> needn't worry, but some laptops and older computers aren't up to the task.
>
> BTW: A miniDV tape contains a DV data stream, not avi files. If you
> capture the data to a Windows computer, you will most likely store it in
> an avi file. Other platforms use different file types. But you don't need
> to worry about that.
October 24, 2004 12:09:14 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Ed Anson" <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MvednYImZ_y3BOfcRVn-pA@comcast.com...
> Smarty wrote:
>> Bill,
> BTW: A miniDV tape contains a DV data stream, not avi files. If you
> capture the data to a Windows computer, you will most likely store it in
> an avi file. Other platforms use different file types. But you don't need
> to worry about that.

Ed,
Are you positive about this? Because reading this forum for a long time, I
see many posts about this subject and most come to the consensus that when
you capture with a 1394 dv card, you aren't really capturing, more like just
transferring the already digital dv-avi signal from tape to the HD for
editing. The actual capturing encoding is done by the camera chips during
the initial recording to tape. There is no further converting done when
capturing( really transferring) to the hard drive.
But I am only going by the threads I've read on here in the past.

AnthonyR.
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 12:09:15 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

AnthonyR wrote:
> "Ed Anson" <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:MvednYImZ_y3BOfcRVn-pA@comcast.com...
>
>>Smarty wrote:
>>
>>>Bill,
>>
>>BTW: A miniDV tape contains a DV data stream, not avi files. If you
>>capture the data to a Windows computer, you will most likely store it in
>>an avi file. Other platforms use different file types. But you don't need
>>to worry about that.
>
>
> Ed,
> Are you positive about this? Because reading this forum for a long time, I
> see many posts about this subject and most come to the consensus that when
> you capture with a 1394 dv card, you aren't really capturing, more like just
> transferring the already digital dv-avi signal from tape to the HD for
> editing. The actual capturing encoding is done by the camera chips during
> the initial recording to tape. There is no further converting done when
> capturing( really transferring) to the hard drive.
> But I am only going by the threads I've read on here in the past.

Yes, I'm positive about this. You are correct when you say that the
conversion to digital form is done in the DV camera. You are also
correct when you say that the FireWire just transfers the digital
stream. However, that doesn't mean that the data are stored as AVI files
on the tape.

A DV tape does not have a file structure as such. It simply stores a DV
data stream. AVI is one of several file types that can be used to store
the digital data. I happen to use QuickTime files. Both file types store
the same DV data, and differ only in how it is "wrapped" by the file
format. Both file types can also store different video encodings, but
that's another story.

But (as I said before) this isn't terribly important. Just use whatever
file format your software creates and consumes.


>
> AnthonyR.
>
>
>
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 1:34:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In rec.video.production Smarty <nobody@nobody.com> wrote:
: Your home computer, in order to do good editing on miniDV (tapes) which
: contain avi files, requires quite a bit of disk space for editing, typically
: 50 to 100 GB would be recommended at a minimum, since these files are about
: 22 GB per hour of recording. The home computer needs a fast processor (at
: least a couple gigahertz), a half a gig of RAM or more,

I have only 256Mb memory and 1.4GHz processor. I use Vegas-Video,
VirtualDub, TMPGE, DVD-Lab, Dynapel, CoolEdit, NTrack, and other
software with no problems. However, I don't even want to talk
about disk space. :) 

Scott
October 24, 2004 1:34:07 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Scott,

Your post and one other both comment on using slower and less capable
computers for video editing. It is entirely true that lesser machines can be
used for video editing. My first video editing home computer was an Apple
Quadra 660AV (about 13 years ago) with a 25 MHz processor and 32 MB of RAM
and it was indeed a far less capable machine. My first Intel based PC for
video editing was also of the same class. I mostly was suggesting a modern 2
GHz 512MB (or better) machine to the original poster because none of us like
to wait 24 hours or longer to render a two hour video! And machines of the
class I recommend can be had for $400 if you know how to shop for them!
Slower machines are a poor choice for this specific application.

Smarty


<sgordon@changethisparttohardbat.com> wrote in message
news:i7Aed.670$_3.12221@typhoon.sonic.net...
> In rec.video.production Smarty <nobody@nobody.com> wrote:
> : Your home computer, in order to do good editing on miniDV (tapes) which
> : contain avi files, requires quite a bit of disk space for editing,
> typically
> : 50 to 100 GB would be recommended at a minimum, since these files are
> about
> : 22 GB per hour of recording. The home computer needs a fast processor
> (at
> : least a couple gigahertz), a half a gig of RAM or more,
>
> I have only 256Mb memory and 1.4GHz processor. I use Vegas-Video,
> VirtualDub, TMPGE, DVD-Lab, Dynapel, CoolEdit, NTrack, and other
> software with no problems. However, I don't even want to talk
> about disk space. :) 
>
> Scott
>
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 2:36:47 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Anthony, I would support you - FireWire just transfers video data so it
must be avi format on the tape.
Roman

AnthonyR wrote:

> Because reading this forum for a long time, I
> see many posts about this subject and most come to the consensus that when
> you capture with a 1394 dv card, you aren't really capturing, more like just
> transferring the already digital dv-avi signal from tape to the HD for
> editing.
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 2:36:48 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

My question is: do these DVD camcorders till have firewire input/output like
mini-DV camcorders?

If they do have firewire, editing video might not be too bad. Quality would
probably not be as good as straight mini-DV format, but certainly acceptable for
many people. If these camcorders lack firewire input/output, I would for sure go
with mini-DV.
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 2:36:49 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

The camcorder mentioned by the OP uses USB2.

"Bailey Savings & Loan" <nospam@no-spam.iwl> wrote in message
news:x_zed.519902$8_6.501618@attbi_s04...
> My question is: do these DVD camcorders till have firewire input/output
> like mini-DV camcorders?
>
> If they do have firewire, editing video might not be too bad. Quality
> would probably not be as good as straight mini-DV format, but certainly
> acceptable for many people. If these camcorders lack firewire
> input/output, I would for sure go with mini-DV.
>
>
>
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 2:36:50 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"luminos" wrote ...
> The camcorder mentioned by the OP uses USB2.

Many (most?) camcorders have USB (1 or 2) for transferring
still pictures. Doesn't preclude using Firewire for transfer of
full-frame full-speed video (such as DV).

We're still waiting for a list of camcorders that use USB2
for transfer of DV video. So far, the list is empty.
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 2:36:51 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
news:10nlkf6i827ld65@corp.supernews.com...
> "luminos" wrote ...
>> The camcorder mentioned by the OP uses USB2.
>
> Many (most?) camcorders have USB (1 or 2) for transferring
> still pictures. Doesn't preclude using Firewire for transfer of
> full-frame full-speed video (such as DV).
>
> We're still waiting for a list of camcorders that use USB2
> for transfer of DV video. So far, the list is empty.
>

Nonsense. The Sony camcorder mention by the OP has USB2 transfer of video.
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 2:36:52 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

> "Richard Crowley" wrote ...
>> Many (most?) camcorders have USB (1 or 2) for transferring
>> still pictures. Doesn't preclude using Firewire for transfer of
>> full-frame full-speed video (such as DV).
>>
>> We're still waiting for a list of camcorders that use USB2
>> for transfer of DV video. So far, the list is empty.

"luminos" wrote ...
> Nonsense. The Sony camcorder mention by the OP has USB2 transfer of
> video.

Perhaps we should define "video". Yes, the DCR-DVD201
mentioned by the OP transfers "video" via USB2, but that is
MPEG (having been previously encoded and stored on a mini-
DVD-R disk).

The list is still empty.

Currently displayed on www.sonystyle.com....

"USB Interface Allows digital still images and MPEG1 movies,
stored on Memory Stick® Media, to be easily transferred to
Microsoft® Windows® operating system compatible or
Macintosh® computers equipped with USB terminals. Simply
plug in the supplied USB cable from your camera to the
computer's USB port for fast access to your pictures. "

"i.LINK®2 DV Interface (IEEE1394) A high speed bi-directional
digital video/audio communication between two compatible
devices equipped with an IEEE1394 interface, including
camcorders, digital VTRs and PCs."

The OP asked whether Mini-DV or Mini-DVD was "better"
and I don't think there is any serious contention that MPEG
is higher quality than DV.
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 5:05:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote in message
news:KTyed.33474$4C.7714133@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>
> "Ed Anson" <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:MvednYImZ_y3BOfcRVn-pA@comcast.com...
>> Smarty wrote:
>>> Bill,
>> BTW: A miniDV tape contains a DV data stream, not avi files. If you
>> capture the data to a Windows computer, you will most likely store it in
>> an avi file. Other platforms use different file types. But you don't need
>> to worry about that.
>
> Ed,
> Are you positive about this? Because reading this forum for a long time, I
> see many posts about this subject and most come to the consensus that when
> you capture with a 1394 dv card, you aren't really capturing, more like
> just transferring the already digital dv-avi signal from tape to the HD
> for editing. The actual capturing encoding is done by the camera chips
> during the initial recording to tape. There is no further converting done
> when capturing( really transferring) to the hard drive.
> But I am only going by the threads I've read on here in the past.
>
> AnthonyR.
>
>


It is true that the encoded stream is not converted in any way. But your
computer won't recognize what to do with it unless it is placed in an AVI
wrapper. An AVI file does not define the encoding, which is why files with
different encoding / codecs can have the same AVI extension. Among other
things, the AVI wrapper tells your software what codec to use.

--
I am 3 of 10. Prepare to be assimilated.
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 10:59:35 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I agree with you Anthony, it is done at the camera and simply transferred
across to the computer.

"AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote in message
news:KTyed.33474$4C.7714133@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>
> "Ed Anson" <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:MvednYImZ_y3BOfcRVn-pA@comcast.com...
>> Smarty wrote:
>>> Bill,
>> BTW: A miniDV tape contains a DV data stream, not avi files. If you
>> capture the data to a Windows computer, you will most likely store it in
>> an avi file. Other platforms use different file types. But you don't need
>> to worry about that.
>
> Ed,
> Are you positive about this? Because reading this forum for a long time, I
> see many posts about this subject and most come to the consensus that when
> you capture with a 1394 dv card, you aren't really capturing, more like
> just transferring the already digital dv-avi signal from tape to the HD
> for editing. The actual capturing encoding is done by the camera chips
> during the initial recording to tape. There is no further converting done
> when capturing( really transferring) to the hard drive.
> But I am only going by the threads I've read on here in the past.
>
> AnthonyR.
>
>
>
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 11:02:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Mini DV is better quality than MPEG2. the better quality the master is the
better and correct me if I am wrong that mini dv edits with little or no
loss. there are mpeg2 editors that retain un-edited portions. mini dv is
more precise at cutting

"Bill" <3726414@spamhole.com> wrote in message
news:6eac4d8d.0410230849.7367bf4c@posting.google.com...
> Hello
>
> I am in the market for a family-oriented (vacations, birthday parties,
> etc) Camcorder and am looking for input on whether DVD or MiniDV is
> the better option.
>
> I WILL be doing video editing on the home computer. In addition, I am
> looking for the longest battery life possible.
>
> Budget is no more than $800 for the camera itself.
>
> A quick look at the top sellers for both are
>
> (DVD) Sony DCR-DVD201
>
> (MiniDV) Sony DCR-HC20/HC40
>
> any info is appreciated
>
> thanks
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 11:02:43 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"TigerMan" <nospam@antispam.com> wrote in message
news:417ac6f4$0$10351$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Mini DV is better quality than MPEG2. the better quality the master is the
> better and correct me if I am wrong that mini dv edits with little or no
> loss. there are mpeg2 editors that retain un-edited portions. mini dv is
> more precise at cutting


This is generally true, however, some of the newer Mpeg2 editors are frame
accurate: They expand and rewrite the frames of I , B, P in software.
October 24, 2004 11:02:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Frame-based editing on an avi file (using miniDV format data) has a unique
and linearly spaced frame each and every 30th of a second (in NTSC) so that
an individual edit point could be 1/30th of a second away from its' nearest
neighbor.

Frame-based editing on an mpeg2 file, using groups of pictures (GOPs) which
contain 15 frames apiece (the standard used for DVD encoding) can only be
every half second apart, even if a software interpolator or some other
"filter" or algorithm or method is used to try to simulate the transition
between two adjacent frames.

Thus, the precision of the edit of an mpeg2 file can only be effectively 15
times more coarse (twice per second instead of 30 times per second). For
most video, this is often enough, since things do not change to the human
observer in most instances over such a short time span nor do they require
such extreme precision in editing. The exceptions to this rule arise in high
motion rate situations where edit points in one half second steps are just
too coarse. The best example I am aware of is a diagonally moving black
hockey puck traversing a white field of ice at high speed. The mpeg2
algorithm itself has a very hard time with motion estimation with this type
of content. And editing this type of material will surely reveal very ugly
effects where the "splices" occur if you use an mpeg2 editor.

If you are editing a 30 second television commercial and want to maintain
precise, accurate, and smooth edits, the avi editor is unquestionably the
right way to go. Home movies are usually much less demanding in this regard
and could use an mpeg2 editor without noticeable problems, but there are
certainly a lot of exceptions, ice hockey being a good one.

Smarty


"luminos" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
news:10nli7g3eh2uf97@news20.forteinc.com...
>
> "TigerMan" <nospam@antispam.com> wrote in message
> news:417ac6f4$0$10351$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> Mini DV is better quality than MPEG2. the better quality the master is
>> the better and correct me if I am wrong that mini dv edits with little or
>> no loss. there are mpeg2 editors that retain un-edited portions. mini dv
>> is more precise at cutting
>
>
> This is generally true, however, some of the newer Mpeg2 editors are frame
> accurate: They expand and rewrite the frames of I , B, P in software.
>
>
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 11:02:45 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
news:19udnec3KbRub-fcRVn-oA@adelphia.com...
> Frame-based editing on an avi file (using miniDV format data) has a unique
> and linearly spaced frame each and every 30th of a second (in NTSC) so
> that an individual edit point could be 1/30th of a second away from its'
> nearest neighbor.
>


I suggest you try editing with VideoReDo. The edit points are not in .5
seconds, and the algorithm is quite remarkable, providing edit points in
hundreths of a second at the finest settings. It is very easy to see the
actual movement with 1/30th of a second! After all, the DVD output
algorithm for mpeg2 is 30 frames per second.
October 24, 2004 11:02:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

luminos,

VideoReDo really is an excellent program, and does reconstruct a 30 frame
per second time base for editing. The left and right arrow keys do indeed
step through the video content in 1/30th of a second clicks.

However, the mpeg2 encoding scheme does not ensure discrete and unique and
separate frames at this rate. Rather, it only encodes video whose motion
vectors meet or exceed pre-determined thresholds. For the mpeg2 encoders
which have user-specified motion estimation controls, then choosing the
right thresholds for the specific type of video content could guarantee that
the mpeg2 compressed stream does indeed have the necessary frame to frame
detail to permit editing on these 30 samples per second to achieve absolute
accuracy. For the vast majority of situations, especially in a consumer DVD
camcorder, these thresholds are NOT user specified. More importantly, by the
time VideoReDo sees the video content, the camera's encoder has made a lot
of premature and incorrect assumptions about what to keep and what to
discard, and has thrown away 90% of the "avi" sampled content which can
NEVER be accurately regenerated. This is the very reason why multi-pass
mpeg2 encoders, which first parse the video and build predictive and
backward (B and P frame) candidates on the first pass before doing the
actual mpeg2 encoding on the 2nd pass look so much better.

My point before as well as now is that avi / linearly sampled and lightly
compressed (non intraframe compressed) video from a miniDV camcorder has
nearly 10 times the data to work with, and no "rash assumptions" about what
a cheap hardware encoder would keep or discard as it runs "on-the-fly"
attempting to write a DVD and throw away 90% of the data in the process. No
amount of editing software sophistication can recover the original detail,
despite appearances to the contrary.

Does any of this matter in real, day to day editing? My opinion is that it
matters a great deal for critical editing work and not much at all for most
users who are merely doing home movies.

Smarty


"luminos" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
news:10nm59eh4afuq0e@news20.forteinc.com...
>
> "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
> news:19udnec3KbRub-fcRVn-oA@adelphia.com...
>> Frame-based editing on an avi file (using miniDV format data) has a
>> unique and linearly spaced frame each and every 30th of a second (in
>> NTSC) so that an individual edit point could be 1/30th of a second away
>> from its' nearest neighbor.
>>
>
>
> I suggest you try editing with VideoReDo. The edit points are not in .5
> seconds, and the algorithm is quite remarkable, providing edit points in
> hundreths of a second at the finest settings. It is very easy to see the
> actual movement with 1/30th of a second! After all, the DVD output
> algorithm for mpeg2 is 30 frames per second.
>
>
>
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 11:02:47 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
news:LZadnUXOmclasubcRVn-tg@adelphia.com...
> luminos,
>
> VideoReDo really is an excellent program, and does reconstruct a 30 frame
> per second time base for editing. The left and right arrow keys do indeed
> step through the video content in 1/30th of a second clicks.
>
> However, the mpeg2 encoding scheme does not ensure discrete and unique and
> separate frames at this rate. Rather, it only encodes video whose motion
> vectors meet or exceed pre-determined thresholds. For the mpeg2 encoders
> which have user-specified motion estimation controls, then choosing the
> right thresholds for the specific type of video content could guarantee
> that the mpeg2 compressed stream does indeed have the necessary frame to
> frame detail to permit editing on these 30 samples per second to achieve
> absolute accuracy. For the vast majority of situations, especially in a
> consumer DVD camcorder, these thresholds are NOT user specified. More
> importantly, by the time VideoReDo sees the video content, the camera's
> encoder has made a lot of premature and incorrect assumptions about what
> to keep and what to discard, and has thrown away 90% of the "avi" sampled
> content which can NEVER be accurately regenerated. This is the very reason
> why multi-pass mpeg2 encoders, which first parse the video and build
> predictive and backward (B and P frame) candidates on the first pass
> before doing the actual mpeg2 encoding on the 2nd pass look so much
> better.
>
> My point before as well as now is that avi / linearly sampled and lightly
> compressed (non intraframe compressed) video from a miniDV camcorder has
> nearly 10 times the data to work with, and no "rash assumptions" about
> what a cheap hardware encoder would keep or discard as it runs
> "on-the-fly" attempting to write a DVD and throw away 90% of the data in
> the process. No amount of editing software sophistication can recover the
> original detail, despite appearances to the contrary.
>
> Does any of this matter in real, day to day editing? My opinion is that it
> matters a great deal for critical editing work and not much at all for
> most users who are merely doing home movies.
>
> Smarty


I do not disagree with anything you say.
October 24, 2004 11:02:48 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

luminos,

I failed to say "Thank You" for mentioning VideoReDo. I was originally
toying with the idea of buying TMPGE's new standalone MPEG2 editor, but your
comment led me to take a look at VideReDo. I now feel like it should be the
one to buy rather than TMPGE, and would not have considered it had you not
brought it up.

For whatever it is worth, I am doing most of my editing these days on mpeg2
files, both from the PVR-250 boards and from my standalone recorder's VOB
files. I really do appreciate how nicely VideReDo works, and I fed it a
number of high-rate video streams with very rapid motion to see how the
software behaves. Just as you said, it is a super product, and I will "vote"
with my wallet!

Thanks again,

Smarty
"luminos" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
news:10nmd78sugg38a6@news20.forteinc.com...
>
> "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
> news:LZadnUXOmclasubcRVn-tg@adelphia.com...
>> luminos,
>>
>> VideoReDo really is an excellent program, and does reconstruct a 30 frame
>> per second time base for editing. The left and right arrow keys do indeed
>> step through the video content in 1/30th of a second clicks.
>>
>> However, the mpeg2 encoding scheme does not ensure discrete and unique
>> and separate frames at this rate. Rather, it only encodes video whose
>> motion vectors meet or exceed pre-determined thresholds. For the mpeg2
>> encoders which have user-specified motion estimation controls, then
>> choosing the right thresholds for the specific type of video content
>> could guarantee that the mpeg2 compressed stream does indeed have the
>> necessary frame to frame detail to permit editing on these 30 samples per
>> second to achieve absolute accuracy. For the vast majority of situations,
>> especially in a consumer DVD camcorder, these thresholds are NOT user
>> specified. More importantly, by the time VideoReDo sees the video
>> content, the camera's encoder has made a lot of premature and incorrect
>> assumptions about what to keep and what to discard, and has thrown away
>> 90% of the "avi" sampled content which can NEVER be accurately
>> regenerated. This is the very reason why multi-pass mpeg2 encoders, which
>> first parse the video and build predictive and backward (B and P frame)
>> candidates on the first pass before doing the actual mpeg2 encoding on
>> the 2nd pass look so much better.
>>
>> My point before as well as now is that avi / linearly sampled and lightly
>> compressed (non intraframe compressed) video from a miniDV camcorder has
>> nearly 10 times the data to work with, and no "rash assumptions" about
>> what a cheap hardware encoder would keep or discard as it runs
>> "on-the-fly" attempting to write a DVD and throw away 90% of the data in
>> the process. No amount of editing software sophistication can recover the
>> original detail, despite appearances to the contrary.
>>
>> Does any of this matter in real, day to day editing? My opinion is that
>> it matters a great deal for critical editing work and not much at all for
>> most users who are merely doing home movies.
>>
>> Smarty
>
>
> I do not disagree with anything you say.
>
>
>
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 11:17:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Hi Bill;

I am not one of the experts here, not by a long shot. I want to get that
straight. That being said, I was just in the same situation as you. I wanted
to get a camcorder for family oriented home movies to send back home. I went
to several stores and asked that almighty question "which is better.. miniDV
or digital tape?" The question they put back to me was "how much editing are
you going to be doing on your computer?". I was told that miniDV captures in
mpeg while tape captures in AVI and mpeg is very limited to how much editing
you can do to it. Since I wanted to do more than just add credits and a menu
I choose the digital tape. It was that simple for me.

As for the camera? I was tossing up between the Canon and the Sony. I have
owned a couple Sony Hi8 before and was very pleased but the Canon was on
special. I think I should have stayed with the Sony but in the end I took
the better deal Canon. To be honest, I have had no problems with the Canon
so far and am quite pleased. Mind you, this is just your typical family
birthdays, plays, home movies with the kids as stars kinda deal. Nothing
special.

Hope that helped.

Paul

"Bailey Savings & Loan" <nospam@no-spam.iwl> wrote in message
news:p uwed.294658$MQ5.87014@attbi_s52...
> If you plan on editing your video on a computer, go with mini-DV. If you
just
> want disks to play on your TV, and that is all you are ever going to do
with
> your video, the disk is probably OK. It isn't like you can't edit these
disks,
> but like someone else says, the on-the-fly MPEG2 encoders of these DVD
> camcorders is certainly not as clean as mini-DV.
>
> "Bill" <3726414@spamhole.com> wrote in message
> news:6eac4d8d.0410230849.7367bf4c@posting.google.com...
> > Hello
> >
> > I am in the market for a family-oriented (vacations, birthday parties,
> > etc) Camcorder and am looking for input on whether DVD or MiniDV is
> > the better option.
> >
> > I WILL be doing video editing on the home computer. In addition, I am
> > looking for the longest battery life possible.
> >
> > Budget is no more than $800 for the camera itself.
> >
> > A quick look at the top sellers for both are
> >
> > (DVD) Sony DCR-DVD201
> >
> > (MiniDV) Sony DCR-HC20/HC40
> >
> > any info is appreciated
> >
> > thanks
>
>
October 24, 2004 11:17:01 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"nerdz_r_us" <nerdz_r_us@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:417aca4c$0$14204$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Hi Bill;
>
> I am not one of the experts here, not by a long shot. I want to get that
> straight. That being said, I was just in the same situation as you. I
> wanted
> to get a camcorder for family oriented home movies to send back home. I
> went
> to several stores and asked that almighty question "which is better..
> miniDV
> or digital tape?"

Bill, just to interject here...I assume you mean miniDVD as opposed to
digital tape, right?
Because miniDV is digital tape, so that might confuse people.

miniDV (digital tape) is different from miniDVD, these companies don't make
it easy, do they?
LOL

AnthonyR.
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 11:17:01 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"nerdz_r_us" <nerdz_r_us@yahoo.com> writes:
> I am not one of the experts here, not by a long shot. I want to get that
> straight. That being said, I was just in the same situation as you. I wanted
> to get a camcorder for family oriented home movies to send back home.

For most amateur purposes, the DVD video quality is fine, but
unfortunately all DVD camcorders I know of use those mini-DVD's that
only hold 30 minutes of video at full rate. Mini-DV holds 1 hour and
hi-8 (what I use right now) holds two hours. I think of getting a
Mini-DV camera but what I really want is a full sized DVD camera that
uses normal DVD-R or DVD+R. The camera would be about the size of my
hi-8 camera but would hold 2 hours of video on a 4.7 gb disc, 3 hours
on the new dual layer discs. Why does nobody make those?
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 11:20:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

which mpeg2 editors can do that?

"luminos" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
news:10nli7g3eh2uf97@news20.forteinc.com...
>
> "TigerMan" <nospam@antispam.com> wrote in message
> news:417ac6f4$0$10351$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> Mini DV is better quality than MPEG2. the better quality the master is
>> the better and correct me if I am wrong that mini dv edits with little or
>> no loss. there are mpeg2 editors that retain un-edited portions. mini dv
>> is more precise at cutting
>
>
> This is generally true, however, some of the newer Mpeg2 editors are frame
> accurate: They expand and rewrite the frames of I , B, P in software.
>
>
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 11:20:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"TigerMan" <nospam@antispam.com> wrote in message
news:417acafc$0$11774$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> which mpeg2 editors can do that?


http://www.brothersoft.com/Multimedia_Graphics_Video_To...

Among others.
October 24, 2004 11:20:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"TigerMan" <nospam@antispam.com> wrote in message
news:417acafc$0$11774$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> which mpeg2 editors can do that?
>
> "luminos" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
> news:10nli7g3eh2uf97@news20.forteinc.com...
>>
>> "TigerMan" <nospam@antispam.com> wrote in message
>> news:417ac6f4$0$10351$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>> Mini DV is better quality than MPEG2. the better quality the master is
>>> the better and correct me if I am wrong that mini dv edits with little
>>> or no loss. there are mpeg2 editors that retain un-edited portions. mini
>>> dv is more precise at cutting
>>
>>
>> This is generally true, however, some of the newer Mpeg2 editors are
>> frame accurate: They expand and rewrite the frames of I , B, P in
>> software.
>>
>>
>
>

I just tried the new Main Concept MPEG PRO Plug v.1.04 in for Premiere Pro,
it's amazing!
It allows you to do frame accurate editing on all types of Mpeg files right
on the timeline, just like it's dv-avi.

But please don't confuse this with the regular, Main Concept Mpeg Plug in
encoder which is just used for encoding the final output to mpeg video from
the timeline, the 2 products are similarly named and can be confused!
It's the $250 Plug in, I am talking about, or more for the HD Version.
There is a demo on their site, it is amazing the editing ability of mpeg in
premiere pro, to bad adobe doesn't include this, maybe in the next upgrade?
Here is the link:
http://www.mainconcept.com/mpeg_pro.shtml#standard

and demo link:
http://downloads.mainconcept.com/fdl.php?downloads.main...

this has changed how I think about editing in mpeg in Premiere, in fact with
this plug in you can capture directly to Premiere Pro in Mpeg2 from a dv
camcorder or a miniDVD camcorder, and edit in Mpeg2 on the timeline and it
will only render the changes with smart rendering to preserve the quality
and save much time.
Too bad it costs so much as a plug in, plus the price of Premiere pro, but I
suspect with the new Liquid Edition 6 doing native frame accurate mpeg
editing now, that this will become more common.

AnthonyR.
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 11:55:07 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

great, thanks

"luminos" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
news:10nlja5nu5dpv33@news20.forteinc.com...
>
> "TigerMan" <nospam@antispam.com> wrote in message
> news:417acafc$0$11774$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> which mpeg2 editors can do that?
>
>
> http://www.brothersoft.com/Multimedia_Graphics_Video_To...
>
> Among others.
>
>
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 1:00:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

he may mean Micro DV

"AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote in message
news:vzAed.174891$4h7.32895313@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>
> "nerdz_r_us" <nerdz_r_us@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:417aca4c$0$14204$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> Hi Bill;
>>
>> I am not one of the experts here, not by a long shot. I want to get that
>> straight. That being said, I was just in the same situation as you. I
>> wanted
>> to get a camcorder for family oriented home movies to send back home. I
>> went
>> to several stores and asked that almighty question "which is better..
>> miniDV
>> or digital tape?"
>
> Bill, just to interject here...I assume you mean miniDVD as opposed to
> digital tape, right?
> Because miniDV is digital tape, so that might confuse people.
>
> miniDV (digital tape) is different from miniDVD, these companies don't
> make it easy, do they?
> LOL
>
> AnthonyR.
>
>
>
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 1:03:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

yeah that is a good program and has smart rendering in it as well for the
unedited parts of the video. it would be good to see that as standard in
Premiere Pro 2

"AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote in message
news:RHAed.174896$4h7.32898150@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>
> "TigerMan" <nospam@antispam.com> wrote in message
> news:417acafc$0$11774$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> which mpeg2 editors can do that?
>>
>> "luminos" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
>> news:10nli7g3eh2uf97@news20.forteinc.com...
>>>
>>> "TigerMan" <nospam@antispam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:417ac6f4$0$10351$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>> Mini DV is better quality than MPEG2. the better quality the master is
>>>> the better and correct me if I am wrong that mini dv edits with little
>>>> or no loss. there are mpeg2 editors that retain un-edited portions.
>>>> mini dv is more precise at cutting
>>>
>>>
>>> This is generally true, however, some of the newer Mpeg2 editors are
>>> frame accurate: They expand and rewrite the frames of I , B, P in
>>> software.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> I just tried the new Main Concept MPEG PRO Plug v.1.04 in for Premiere
> Pro, it's amazing!
> It allows you to do frame accurate editing on all types of Mpeg files
> right on the timeline, just like it's dv-avi.
>
> But please don't confuse this with the regular, Main Concept Mpeg Plug in
> encoder which is just used for encoding the final output to mpeg video
> from the timeline, the 2 products are similarly named and can be confused!
> It's the $250 Plug in, I am talking about, or more for the HD Version.
> There is a demo on their site, it is amazing the editing ability of mpeg
> in premiere pro, to bad adobe doesn't include this, maybe in the next
> upgrade?
> Here is the link:
> http://www.mainconcept.com/mpeg_pro.shtml#standard
>
> and demo link:
> http://downloads.mainconcept.com/fdl.php?downloads.main...
>
> this has changed how I think about editing in mpeg in Premiere, in fact
> with this plug in you can capture directly to Premiere Pro in Mpeg2 from a
> dv camcorder or a miniDVD camcorder, and edit in Mpeg2 on the timeline and
> it will only render the changes with smart rendering to preserve the
> quality and save much time.
> Too bad it costs so much as a plug in, plus the price of Premiere pro, but
> I suspect with the new Liquid Edition 6 doing native frame accurate mpeg
> editing now, that this will become more common.
>
> AnthonyR.
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 3:11:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote in message
news:KTyed.33474$4C.7714133@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>
> "Ed Anson" <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:MvednYImZ_y3BOfcRVn-pA@comcast.com...
> > Smarty wrote:
> >> Bill,
> > BTW: A miniDV tape contains a DV data stream, not avi files. If you
> > capture the data to a Windows computer, you will most likely store it in
> > an avi file. Other platforms use different file types. But you don't
need
> > to worry about that.
>
> Ed,
> Are you positive about this?

He's right. AVI is just a file wrapper which can hold data in a variety of
formats. MiniDV uses the DV25 format and does not use an AVI file. When
you "capture" miniDV, you are merely transferring the data from the
DV25-formatted tape to an AVI-formatted file on the computer.

>Because reading this forum for a long time, I
> see many posts about this subject and most come to the consensus that when
> you capture with a 1394 dv card, you aren't really capturing, more like
just
> transferring the already digital dv-avi signal from tape to the HD for
> editing. The actual capturing encoding is done by the camera chips during
> the initial recording to tape. There is no further converting done when
> capturing( really transferring) to the hard drive.
> But I am only going by the threads I've read on here in the past.
>
> AnthonyR.
>
>
>
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 3:14:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"nerdz_r_us" <nerdz_r_us@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:417aca4c$0$14204$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Hi Bill;
>
> I am not one of the experts here, not by a long shot. I want to get that
> straight. That being said, I was just in the same situation as you. I
wanted
> to get a camcorder for family oriented home movies to send back home. I
went
> to several stores and asked that almighty question "which is better..
miniDV
> or digital tape?"

If, by "digital tape," you mean Digital 8, they are, in theory, identical in
quality. Both formats store data in DV25 format, and both can be
transferred to a computer for editing. However, in practice, Digital 8 is a
low-end consumer format, meaning that the cameras will be of poorer
quality -- poorer electronics, optics, etc.


> The question they put back to me was "how much editing are
> you going to be doing on your computer?". I was told that miniDV captures
in
> mpeg while tape captures in AVI and mpeg is very limited to how much
editing
> you can do to it. Since I wanted to do more than just add credits and a
menu
> I choose the digital tape. It was that simple for me.
>
> As for the camera? I was tossing up between the Canon and the Sony. I have
> owned a couple Sony Hi8 before and was very pleased but the Canon was on
> special. I think I should have stayed with the Sony but in the end I took
> the better deal Canon. To be honest, I have had no problems with the Canon
> so far and am quite pleased. Mind you, this is just your typical family
> birthdays, plays, home movies with the kids as stars kinda deal. Nothing
> special.
>
> Hope that helped.
>
> Paul
>
> "Bailey Savings & Loan" <nospam@no-spam.iwl> wrote in message
> news:p uwed.294658$MQ5.87014@attbi_s52...
> > If you plan on editing your video on a computer, go with mini-DV. If you
> just
> > want disks to play on your TV, and that is all you are ever going to do
> with
> > your video, the disk is probably OK. It isn't like you can't edit these
> disks,
> > but like someone else says, the on-the-fly MPEG2 encoders of these DVD
> > camcorders is certainly not as clean as mini-DV.
> >
> > "Bill" <3726414@spamhole.com> wrote in message
> > news:6eac4d8d.0410230849.7367bf4c@posting.google.com...
> > > Hello
> > >
> > > I am in the market for a family-oriented (vacations, birthday parties,
> > > etc) Camcorder and am looking for input on whether DVD or MiniDV is
> > > the better option.
> > >
> > > I WILL be doing video editing on the home computer. In addition, I am
> > > looking for the longest battery life possible.
> > >
> > > Budget is no more than $800 for the camera itself.
> > >
> > > A quick look at the top sellers for both are
> > >
> > > (DVD) Sony DCR-DVD201
> > >
> > > (MiniDV) Sony DCR-HC20/HC40
> > >
> > > any info is appreciated
> > >
> > > thanks
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 3:17:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote in message
news:7xbret3tqy.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> "nerdz_r_us" <nerdz_r_us@yahoo.com> writes:
> > I am not one of the experts here, not by a long shot. I want to get that
> > straight. That being said, I was just in the same situation as you. I
wanted
> > to get a camcorder for family oriented home movies to send back home.
>
> For most amateur purposes, the DVD video quality is fine, but
> unfortunately all DVD camcorders I know of use those mini-DVD's that
> only hold 30 minutes of video at full rate. Mini-DV holds 1 hour and
> hi-8 (what I use right now) holds two hours.


MiniDV holds 60 minutes at standard play and 90 minutes at extended play.
Note, too, that there is no difference in quality between standard and
extended play -- it's the same data, just packed more closely in extended.
There is a greater risk of drop outs, and may be compatibility issues with
other camcorders, but extended play video quality is identical to standard
play.

Also note that there are miniDV tapes available that will provide up to 2
hours recording time at extended play.

> I think of getting a
> Mini-DV camera but what I really want is a full sized DVD camera that
> uses normal DVD-R or DVD+R. The camera would be about the size of my
> hi-8 camera but would hold 2 hours of video on a 4.7 gb disc, 3 hours
> on the new dual layer discs. Why does nobody make those?
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 5:00:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 13:12:37 -0400, "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com>
wrote:

>Bill,
>
>If your home computer is up to the task (and this is a big if which I will
>expand upon below), I would opt for the DV tape format rather than record
>directly onto disk. My reasoning is as follows:
>
>1. The mpeg2 encoders found in DVD camcorders which do real-time encoding to
>the disk are generally weak, leaving artifacts which become especially
>apparent when you use the longer recording times.
>
>2. The inherent recording capacity of a miniDV tape is nominally 10 times as
>great as that of a mini DVD disk used in the DVD camcorders, thus capturing
>considerably more raw detail on the tape.
>
>3. The minDV tape is ultimately more precisely edited, since it contains far
>less compressed video and has a linear format with respect to time base.
>This makes for extremely precise edits and lessens the opportunity for time
>base issues like lip synch errors to appear later in the editing process.
>
>4. The media (miniDV tape) is less expensive.
>
>5. The miniDV camcorders and tapes have been around for nearly a decade and
>are reliable and very mature. The camcorders themselves typically have more
>features per dollar than the DVD style and there are a wider variety offered
>as well.
>
>Having made these points (and there are certainly good arguments to be made
>for the opposing choice as well), I want to briefly qualify the editing
>computer issue mentioned above.
>
>Your home computer, in order to do good editing on miniDV (tapes) which
>contain avi files, requires quite a bit of disk space for editing, typically
>50 to 100 GB would be recommended at a minimum, since these files are about
>22 GB per hour of recording. The home computer needs a fast processor (at
>least a couple gigahertz), a half a gig of RAM or more, and a relative;y
>fast I/O capability. The editing software for doing avi editing is extremely
>mature and stable, and ranges from shareware to some very nice high end
>predicts costing hundreds or even thousands. This format is, after all, what
>professionals use rather than editing mpeg2 files directly off a DVD.
>
>I and others would be glad to elaborate and help you make specific editing
>and authoring choices when you get to that stage.
>
>One final caution..........if you are someone looking for fast, simple, and
>basic........and are not really anxious to get into the more complex
>computer and editing approach I am proposing, then I would look for a simple
>DVD camcorder with the approach that a little editing on the computer and
>within the camcorder may be enough.
>
>Also....as regards camcorders in general......I have personally owned many
>over the years and keep coming back to Sony brand stuff despite occasional
>Canon, Panasonic, and other alternatives. I am not surprised that Sony still
>has "top selling" status in these areas based on your comment, and would buy
>another Sony without hesitation. Now if they would just drop the price of
>their new HD camcorder from $3700 a wee bit..............
>
>Smarty
>
>
>"Bill" <3726414@spamhole.com> wrote in message
>news:6eac4d8d.0410230849.7367bf4c@posting.google.com...
>> Hello
>>
>> I am in the market for a family-oriented (vacations, birthday parties,
>> etc) Camcorder and am looking for input on whether DVD or MiniDV is
>> the better option.
>>
>> I WILL be doing video editing on the home computer. In addition, I am
>> looking for the longest battery life possible.
>>
>> Budget is no more than $800 for the camera itself.
>>
>> A quick look at the top sellers for both are
>>
>> (DVD) Sony DCR-DVD201
>>
>> (MiniDV) Sony DCR-HC20/HC40
>>
>> any info is appreciated
>>
>> thanks
>

Seperate , dedicated HD for the video editing...plain and simple.
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 5:01:01 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 22:36:47 +0200, Roman Svihorik
<gemini@post.mbc.sk> wrote:

>Anthony, I would support you - FireWire just transfers video data so it
>must be avi format on the tape.
>Roman
>
>AnthonyR wrote:
>
>> Because reading this forum for a long time, I
>> see many posts about this subject and most come to the consensus that when
>> you capture with a 1394 dv card, you aren't really capturing, more like just
>> transferring the already digital dv-avi signal from tape to the HD for
>> editing.


It is in DV format on the tape AND in DV format in the captured .avi
file....... .avi is just a shell for different types of formats.
October 25, 2004 2:08:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Tigerman,
yes I agree, it would be good for Premiere pro 2, especially if the upgrade
is only $99 or $149 for registered users, then they can save from the cost
of $250 for the plug in. :) 
Let's wait and see what else they can add.
But with newer dvd camera's coming out everyday which capture already in
mpeg2 and maybe some high definition models will use mpeg4 to fit all that
info, editing directly on mpeg will makes sense at that point.

I see the point about mpeg2 being very lossy as a capture format but
considering how much more info a hdtv picture will have to begin with, maybe
a higher compression capture scheme will be necessary, unless they start
making blu-ray camera devices.

AnthonyR.


"TigerMan" <nospam@antispam.com> wrote in message
news:417ae354$0$14203$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> yeah that is a good program and has smart rendering in it as well for the
> unedited parts of the video. it would be good to see that as standard in
> Premiere Pro 2
>
> "AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote in message
> news:RHAed.174896$4h7.32898150@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>>
>> "TigerMan" <nospam@antispam.com> wrote in message
>> news:417acafc$0$11774$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>> which mpeg2 editors can do that?
>>>
>>> "luminos" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
>>> news:10nli7g3eh2uf97@news20.forteinc.com...
>>>>
>>>> "TigerMan" <nospam@antispam.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:417ac6f4$0$10351$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>>> Mini DV is better quality than MPEG2. the better quality the master is
>>>>> the better and correct me if I am wrong that mini dv edits with little
>>>>> or no loss. there are mpeg2 editors that retain un-edited portions.
>>>>> mini dv is more precise at cutting
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is generally true, however, some of the newer Mpeg2 editors are
>>>> frame accurate: They expand and rewrite the frames of I , B, P in
>>>> software.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I just tried the new Main Concept MPEG PRO Plug v.1.04 in for Premiere
>> Pro, it's amazing!
>> It allows you to do frame accurate editing on all types of Mpeg files
>> right on the timeline, just like it's dv-avi.
>>
>> But please don't confuse this with the regular, Main Concept Mpeg Plug in
>> encoder which is just used for encoding the final output to mpeg video
>> from the timeline, the 2 products are similarly named and can be
>> confused!
>> It's the $250 Plug in, I am talking about, or more for the HD Version.
>> There is a demo on their site, it is amazing the editing ability of mpeg
>> in premiere pro, to bad adobe doesn't include this, maybe in the next
>> upgrade?
>> Here is the link:
>> http://www.mainconcept.com/mpeg_pro.shtml#standard
>>
>> and demo link:
>> http://downloads.mainconcept.com/fdl.php?downloads.main...
>>
>> this has changed how I think about editing in mpeg in Premiere, in fact
>> with this plug in you can capture directly to Premiere Pro in Mpeg2 from
>> a dv camcorder or a miniDVD camcorder, and edit in Mpeg2 on the timeline
>> and it will only render the changes with smart rendering to preserve the
>> quality and save much time.
>> Too bad it costs so much as a plug in, plus the price of Premiere pro,
>> but I suspect with the new Liquid Edition 6 doing native frame accurate
>> mpeg editing now, that this will become more common.
>>
>> AnthonyR.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
October 25, 2004 2:17:36 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Not so far. MPEG2 format can not be edited as easy as avi format.
Format is the point. Not transfer line.
Roman

Bailey Savings & Loan wrote:
> My question is: do these DVD camcorders till have firewire input/output like
> mini-DV camcorders?
> If they do have firewire, editing video might not be too bad. Quality would
> probably not be as good as straight mini-DV format, but certainly acceptable for
> many people. If these camcorders lack firewire input/output, I would for sure go
> with mini-DV.
October 25, 2004 2:20:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
news:64OdnZwdetsAqubcRVn-pw@adelphia.com...
> luminos,
>
> I failed to say "Thank You" for mentioning VideoReDo. I was originally
> toying with the idea of buying TMPGE's new standalone MPEG2 editor, but
> your comment led me to take a look at VideReDo. I now feel like it should
> be the one to buy rather than TMPGE, and would not have considered it had
> you not brought it up.
>
> For whatever it is worth, I am doing most of my editing these days on
> mpeg2 files, both from the PVR-250 boards and from my standalone
> recorder's VOB files. I really do appreciate how nicely VideReDo works,
> and I fed it a number of high-rate video streams with very rapid motion to
> see how the software behaves. Just as you said, it is a super product, and
> I will "vote" with my wallet!
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Smarty

Guys, I too feel the same way about everything you both said, and find
myself in the same boat editing video captures from my WinTV PVR board and
standalone VOB files in mpeg also. For those video's it is appropriate.
That is also why I was amazed at the main concept mpeg pro plug in cause it
let me capture directly in premiere pro using the plug-in to recognize my
Hauppauge TV Tuner and edit the mpeg captured directly on the premiere
timeline.
I tried VideoReDo,a nd think it's a great program also, but I like using my
normal editor that I am use to more.
So both ways are good solutions when having to deal with mpeg files.
:) 

AnthonyR.
Anonymous
October 25, 2004 1:20:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

or even a camera with a HDD. JVC are about to release one with a memory card
and think it is MPEG2 format. i had a JVC mini DV but swapped it for a Canon
and glad I did, the JVC was a poor camera so hope they improve their quality
with these new models

"AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote in message
news:fJVed.96730$Ot3.54425@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> Tigerman,
> yes I agree, it would be good for Premiere pro 2, especially if the
> upgrade is only $99 or $149 for registered users, then they can save from
> the cost of $250 for the plug in. :) 
> Let's wait and see what else they can add.
> But with newer dvd camera's coming out everyday which capture already in
> mpeg2 and maybe some high definition models will use mpeg4 to fit all that
> info, editing directly on mpeg will makes sense at that point.
>
> I see the point about mpeg2 being very lossy as a capture format but
> considering how much more info a hdtv picture will have to begin with,
> maybe a higher compression capture scheme will be necessary, unless they
> start making blu-ray camera devices.
>
> AnthonyR.
>
>
> "TigerMan" <nospam@antispam.com> wrote in message
> news:417ae354$0$14203$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> yeah that is a good program and has smart rendering in it as well for the
>> unedited parts of the video. it would be good to see that as standard in
>> Premiere Pro 2
>>
>> "AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote in message
>> news:RHAed.174896$4h7.32898150@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>>>
>>> "TigerMan" <nospam@antispam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:417acafc$0$11774$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>> which mpeg2 editors can do that?
>>>>
>>>> "luminos" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:10nli7g3eh2uf97@news20.forteinc.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "TigerMan" <nospam@antispam.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:417ac6f4$0$10351$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>>>> Mini DV is better quality than MPEG2. the better quality the master
>>>>>> is the better and correct me if I am wrong that mini dv edits with
>>>>>> little or no loss. there are mpeg2 editors that retain un-edited
>>>>>> portions. mini dv is more precise at cutting
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is generally true, however, some of the newer Mpeg2 editors are
>>>>> frame accurate: They expand and rewrite the frames of I , B, P in
>>>>> software.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I just tried the new Main Concept MPEG PRO Plug v.1.04 in for Premiere
>>> Pro, it's amazing!
>>> It allows you to do frame accurate editing on all types of Mpeg files
>>> right on the timeline, just like it's dv-avi.
>>>
>>> But please don't confuse this with the regular, Main Concept Mpeg Plug
>>> in encoder which is just used for encoding the final output to mpeg
>>> video from the timeline, the 2 products are similarly named and can be
>>> confused!
>>> It's the $250 Plug in, I am talking about, or more for the HD Version.
>>> There is a demo on their site, it is amazing the editing ability of mpeg
>>> in premiere pro, to bad adobe doesn't include this, maybe in the next
>>> upgrade?
>>> Here is the link:
>>> http://www.mainconcept.com/mpeg_pro.shtml#standard
>>>
>>> and demo link:
>>> http://downloads.mainconcept.com/fdl.php?downloads.main...
>>>
>>> this has changed how I think about editing in mpeg in Premiere, in fact
>>> with this plug in you can capture directly to Premiere Pro in Mpeg2 from
>>> a dv camcorder or a miniDVD camcorder, and edit in Mpeg2 on the timeline
>>> and it will only render the changes with smart rendering to preserve the
>>> quality and save much time.
>>> Too bad it costs so much as a plug in, plus the price of Premiere pro,
>>> but I suspect with the new Liquid Edition 6 doing native frame accurate
>>> mpeg editing now, that this will become more common.
>>>
>>> AnthonyR.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
October 25, 2004 9:38:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
news:2u29inF25vl9bU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
>
> He's right. AVI is just a file wrapper which can hold data in a variety
> of
> formats. MiniDV uses the DV25 format and does not use an AVI file. When
> you "capture" miniDV, you are merely transferring the data from the
> DV25-formatted tape to an AVI-formatted file on the computer.
>
PTravel,

This reply has been thrown around so many times, even I am confused as to
what people have agreed on.
The camera does all the encoding to DV-AVI( DV25) internally using it's
chips. Then when you hook up the digital camcorder to your PC using a 1394
transfer protocol port, you merely transfer over the already digitized data
to your computer, and of course it is saved as a DV-AVI as opposed to other
types of AVI's, naturally.

But my original point was that the 1394 capture card, as some call it,
actually does no encoding, just transfers the already digitized video data
to the PC. Is this correct?
Now, who names it AVI? That is done as the last step in the Operating
System, naturally, as the file is saved.

AnthonyR.
Anonymous
October 25, 2004 9:38:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote in message
news:eSafd.33894$4C.8364547@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>
> "PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
> news:2u29inF25vl9bU1@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> >
> > He's right. AVI is just a file wrapper which can hold data in a variety
> > of
> > formats. MiniDV uses the DV25 format and does not use an AVI file.
When
> > you "capture" miniDV, you are merely transferring the data from the
> > DV25-formatted tape to an AVI-formatted file on the computer.
> >
> PTravel,
>
> This reply has been thrown around so many times, even I am confused as to
> what people have agreed on.
> The camera does all the encoding to DV-AVI( DV25) internally using it's
> chips.

It does not encode to "dv-avi." It encodes to DV25, which is not the same
thing.

AVI is a computer file format which can contain data in a variety of
formats, e.g. compressed, uncompressed, etc. The format of a miniDV tape is
NOT avi.

>Then when you hook up the digital camcorder to your PC using a 1394
> transfer protocol port, you merely transfer over the already digitized
data
> to your computer, and of course it is saved as a DV-AVI as opposed to
other
> types of AVI's, naturally.

Yes, the camcorder transfers the data to the computer via 1394. No, it does
not transfer it in AVI format.

>
> But my original point was that the 1394 capture card, as some call it,
> actually does no encoding, just transfers the already digitized video data
> to the PC. Is this correct?

Yes, that is correct -- "capture" is a misnomer when talking about a 1394
transfer of DV25 data, as the term usually refers to digitizing an analog
video signal.

> Now, who names it AVI? That is done as the last step in the Operating
> System, naturally, as the file is saved.

The capture program places the DV25 in an AVI wrapper, not the OS. Win XP
Pro, I believe, has this capability built-in to the OS, but other operating
systems do not.

>
> AnthonyR.
>
>
>
Anonymous
October 25, 2004 10:43:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote in message
news:eSafd.33894$4C.8364547@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>
> "PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
> news:2u29inF25vl9bU1@uni-berlin.de...
>>
>>
>> He's right. AVI is just a file wrapper which can hold data in a variety
>> of
>> formats. MiniDV uses the DV25 format and does not use an AVI file. When
>> you "capture" miniDV, you are merely transferring the data from the
>> DV25-formatted tape to an AVI-formatted file on the computer.
>>
> PTravel,
>
> This reply has been thrown around so many times, even I am confused as to
> what people have agreed on.
> The camera does all the encoding to DV-AVI( DV25) internally using it's
> chips. Then when you hook up the digital camcorder to your PC using a 1394
> transfer protocol port, you merely transfer over the already digitized
> data to your computer, and of course it is saved as a DV-AVI as opposed to
> other types of AVI's, naturally.
>
> But my original point was that the 1394 capture card, as some call it,
> actually does no encoding, just transfers the already digitized video data
> to the PC. Is this correct?
> Now, who names it AVI? That is done as the last step in the Operating
> System, naturally, as the file is saved.
>
> AnthonyR.
>
I think you are very close, except that the camera only knows about
DV and 1394. The camera doesn't know anything about AVI files, or
QuickTime for that manner.

DV, as used here, is DV-25 it relates to the compression technique used
by the camera to do a 5-1 compression before stashing the data to tape.

1394, i-link, and Firewire are all virtually the same thing, and can be
thought of as a transfer protocol. They are not DV, they are just different
names for the scheme used to format the stream in a manner that can be
read by the computer.

Sony owns the name i-link, and Apple owns Firewire. They are pretty
interchangeable, but there are probably slight differences in the actual
specification from one vendor as compared to the next. At any rate,
they both use 1394 as a transfer medium.

AVI is what they call a wrapper. When the file comes into the computer
as raw DV, it is then wrapped up in an AVI file which helps the program
know how to deal with the data it is receiving. You can use other
wrappers just as well. Apple uses MOV (QuickTime) to wrap DV for
use with their programs. Avid typically uses it's own OMF wrapper,
but even there I think the DV data is still the same, only the wrapper is
different. I'm not totally sure of the details, but it is something like
that.

I have not been following this thread, but I think the discussion is about
using Mini-DV tape, or DVD to acquire video in the camera. This may
have changed, but I think the information stored on an in-camera DVD
recorder is a form of MPEG-2. MPEG-2 is usually highly compressed.
It doesn't have to be, but that is it's main value so that Movies can be
crammed into the small amount of space available on DVDs. MPEG-2
can be very good by eliminating the delta compression and having
every frame be an I frame. This could make it be smellier in quality to DV,
but it is rarely used that way.

MPEG-2 is usually applied as a very lossy format. Generally much more
Lossy than implementations of DV compression. DV can be copied and
edited without no further lossy as long as you don't make any changes to
the video. If you add titles, do color correction, etc. you will get some
loss,
but most people won't notice.

MPEG-2 uses delta compression. that means that it will have a fully
formed frame of video only occasionally. Most frames will just be the
difference between the new frame and the previous frame. This makes
it a cumbersome format for editing, and everything gets recompressed,
wither you make changes or not. Just making simple cuts will force
recompression. Since the video was so heavily compressed in the first
place, it goes down hill much faster than less compressed formats. The
relatives probably won't care, and it will still look better than VHS.

For home movies this may be perfectly acceptable, and it is convenient
to be able to play the DVD directly in your, or a relative's, DVD player. In
my experience, very few home movies ever actually get edited, so having
them go straight to DV might be a plus in that respect.

I hope that helped.

David
Anonymous
October 26, 2004 1:47:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"AnthonyR" wrote ...
> This reply has been thrown around so many times, even I am confused as to
> what people have agreed on.
> The camera does all the encoding to DV-AVI( DV25) internally
> using it's chips.

The camera encodes to DV25 (or DV50 if you're rich and have a
high-end Panny). The camera has no concept of AVI or any other
computer file definition. DV25 (or DV50) is a *bitstream* of
digital video data just as analog video (composite, Y/C, etc.) is an
analog stream of individual video frames.

> Then when you hook up the digital camcorder to your PC using a 1394
> transfer protocol port, you merely transfer over the already digitized
> data to your computer, and of course it is saved as a DV-
> AVI as opposed to other types of AVI's, naturally.

There are other ways of saving DV besides AVI. When I started out
editing DV, I was using software that prefered the QuickTime .MOV
container format. But it was the same DV data inside.

> But my original point was that the 1394 capture card, as some call it,
> actually does no encoding, just transfers the already digitized video data
> to the PC. Is this correct?

Exactly.

> Now, who names it AVI? That is done as the last step in the Operating
> System, naturally, as the file is saved.

The DV bitstream is parsed (so that it can start and stop cleanly at a
frame-break) and written to a disk file with the appropriate headers
(including those that identify which codec is required to interperet
the file data). The capture application software (Adobe Premiere,
or Scenalyzer in my case) is where the file is formatted, written, and
named. Very similar to the way audio is captured and saved to a file,
or the way a document is created/edited and saved to a file.
Anonymous
October 26, 2004 4:27:21 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

>
> MPEG-2 uses delta compression. that means that it will have a fully
> formed frame of video only occasionally. Most frames will just be the
> difference between the new frame and the previous frame.

Wrong.

>This makes
> it a cumbersome format for editing, and everything gets recompressed,
> wither you make changes or not. Just making simple cuts will force
> recompression.

Not necessarily. See VideoReDo.

>Since the video was so heavily compressed in the first
> place, it goes down hill much faster than less compressed formats.

This is an inacccurate metaphor....down hill?

The
> relatives probably won't care, and it will still look better than VHS.
>
> For home movies this may be perfectly acceptable, and it is convenient
> to be able to play the DVD directly in your, or a relative's, DVD player.
> In
> my experience, very few home movies ever actually get edited, so having
> them go straight to DV might be a plus in that respect.
>
> I hope that helped.
>
> David
>
>
>
October 26, 2004 11:30:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Bill wrote:
> Hello
>
> I am in the market for a family-oriented (vacations, birthday parties,
> etc) Camcorder and am looking for input on whether DVD or MiniDV is
> the better option.
>
> I WILL be doing video editing on the home computer. In addition, I am
> looking for the longest battery life possible.
>
> Budget is no more than $800 for the camera itself.
>
> A quick look at the top sellers for both are
>
> (DVD) Sony DCR-DVD201
>
> (MiniDV) Sony DCR-HC20/HC40
>
> any info is appreciated
>
> thanks
If you want to edit it, MiniDV is your choice.
It's an MJPG related format and much better suited for editing.

Andre

--
----------------------------------
http://www.aguntherphotography.com
Anonymous
October 27, 2004 6:20:25 AM

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

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 18:43:06 GMT, "david.mccall"
<david.mccallUNDERLINE@comcast.net> wrote:

>MPEG-2 uses delta compression. that means that it will have a fully
>formed frame of video only occasionally. Most frames will just be the
>difference between the new frame and the previous frame. This makes
>it a cumbersome format for editing, and everything gets recompressed,
>wither you make changes or not. Just making simple cuts will force
>recompression.

Only for the frames of the incomplete GOP, the rest of GOPs are not
re-encoded. If you cut at an I-frame, then there's no re-encoding at
all.
October 28, 2004 3:54:54 AM

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

"Bariloche" <bariloche@bariloche.com> wrote in message
news:D 8qtn0ploghp0paer2cbbmvv66eicckp9b@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 18:43:06 GMT, "david.mccall"
> <david.mccallUNDERLINE@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>MPEG-2 uses delta compression. that means that it will have a fully
>>formed frame of video only occasionally. Most frames will just be the
>>difference between the new frame and the previous frame. This makes
>>it a cumbersome format for editing, and everything gets recompressed,
>>wither you make changes or not. Just making simple cuts will force
>>recompression.
>
> Only for the frames of the incomplete GOP, the rest of GOPs are not
> re-encoded. If you cut at an I-frame, then there's no re-encoding at
> all.
>

Bariloche,
This is true, if you cut on an I-frame, there will be no recompression at
all, no loss, and if you edit in-between this group of frames(GOP) then the
recompression will only be for the incomplete GOP, not the entire video.
Correct.
I believe some older software didn't have this smart render ability, and
forced you to wait while it re-encoded an entire file, which not only took
hours but made people believe it was adding artifacts to the entire video.
This is why so many people believe it's impossible or impractical to edit
mpeg.
But with the new breed of encoders that use smart rendering and only
recompress incomplete GOP's it is a lot easier now.
AnthonyR.
!