Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The HDV format...Compressed audio?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 2:26:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound, (More info?)

As I'm going over the specs of the new Sony HDV camcorder, I notice audio is
recorded as compressed audio, not as linear audio.

I realize that video has been compressed rather massively in lots of formats
without a huge outcry, but I think audio is more sensitive to compression,
especially if one compression scheme is followed by others during
distribution.

You have an ISDN V/O, a DVD, a broadcast. At the lowest posssible, that's
three different compression algorithms (not counting more if you store the
program on a networ or TV station's hard drive. If the station's transmitter
is not located near master control, you might have a digital STL that uses
it's own compression.

Are we walking down a dangerous path here?

Regards,

Ty Ford


-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 2:26:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

"Ty Ford" wrote ...
> As I'm going over the specs of the new Sony HDV camcorder,
> I notice audio is recorded as compressed audio, not as linear
> audio.
>
> I realize that video has been compressed rather massively in
> lots of formats without a huge outcry, but I think audio is more
> sensitive to compression, especially if one compression scheme
> is followed by others during distribution.
....
> Are we walking down a dangerous path here?

Seems to me an admission that Sony doesn't consider this to be
a serious, even SEMI-pro product. And/or further indication of
the continuing decline of manufacturers' percieved consideration
of the importance of audio performance.
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 2:26:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

>>>Are we walking down a dangerous path here?

I do a lot of work on documentaries, many of them "personal docs" shot
by the filmmakers themselves, often with little or no assistance.
These Sony HDV cams are looking like they will be the "new thing" for
'05, as the Panasonic miniDV was in '04---ie many are all starting
their new projects on them. So far,
NONE of the filmmakers I'd talked to about this understood that the
audio they recorded in HDV mode was compressed and not as "fidelifull"
as
the audio they'd been getting on their miniDV rigs.
And the soundtracks for these films are already a struggle with
uncompressed miniDV audio!
My other question is how the interframe compression scheme used in
these cameras will affect editorial--like what happens if you want the
cut to happen on one of the "compressed" frames? How does TC apply
to those compressed frames?

I would love to hear from you Ty and from other "resident reviewers"
like Jay Rose about how the audio for these cameras tests out--I
stongly believe that many of us will be dealing with them or their
tracks very soon.

Philip Perkins CAS
February 5, 2005 2:26:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

"Are we walking down a dangerous path here"
Yes we are and as many here will agree Audio is mostly an afterthought
with most prosumer and the dreaded consumer cameras. I haven't yet had
the displeasure of pumping audio to HDV, sounds like we need to have a
disclaimer written up maybe with the Caveat Emptor in bold. As I saw on
the Apple web site, Imovie and FCExpress can work with HDV (I haven't
tried HDV editing in those programs yet either) I only hope that the
buyers will get the real deal on what these cameras can't do by the
salespeople that are pushing them. Even the big daddy HD-Cam is frought
with Audio glitches. Only doing Double system will fix that. It's just
that most productions won't pay for it, What are we to do ... Don
Oleg Kaizerman wrote:
> The camera is probably blend the video mpeg - peg compression ,
about 40
> to1 with audio compression mpeg-1 layer 2 in the same working flow.
> most of the new versions of editing systems already support the hdv
as a
> platform for editing ( fcp, vegas and what I heard the new version of
avid )
> since the hdv is mpeg , the system must open all frames between
every 2
> I frames and probably which probably have the all audio data ,
don't know
> if the audio back converted to wav orany other format or stay as
compress
> file , but certainly looks that no one thinking that the additional
audio
> which comes to the system have to be converted to mpeg for layering ,
so
> probably you decompress the files , edit , and then compress them
again (
> maybe the file have memory not to loose another data if it the type
of the
> file didn't changed)
> eventually the mastering is depends on the final project and the sort
of
> audio will be as you like ,
> from what I heard after record on that camera , the sound has
significant
> loss in low mid fq like you have on 320 mpeg , of course it s bad for
music
> recording but can live in Indy film , the preamp stage from what I
heard is
> much better then in all privies Sony models and in dv mode it sound
the same
> as dvx
>
> --
> Oleg Kaizerman (gebe) Hollyland
>
> "Philip Perkins" <spamiser@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1107623035.012875.193990@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>Are we walking down a dangerous path here?
> >
> > I do a lot of work on documentaries, many of them "personal docs"
shot
> > by the filmmakers themselves, often with little or no assistance.
> > These Sony HDV cams are looking like they will be the "new thing"
for
> > '05, as the Panasonic miniDV was in '04---ie many are all starting
> > their new projects on them. So far,
> > NONE of the filmmakers I'd talked to about this understood that the
> > audio they recorded in HDV mode was compressed and not as
"fidelifull"
> > as
> > the audio they'd been getting on their miniDV rigs.
> > And the soundtracks for these films are already a struggle with
> > uncompressed miniDV audio!
> > My other question is how the interframe compression scheme used in
> > these cameras will affect editorial--like what happens if you want
the
> > cut to happen on one of the "compressed" frames? How does TC
apply
> > to those compressed frames?
> >
> > I would love to hear from you Ty and from other "resident
reviewers"
> > like Jay Rose about how the audio for these cameras tests out--I
> > stongly believe that many of us will be dealing with them or their
> > tracks very soon.
> >
> > Philip Perkins CAS
> >
February 5, 2005 2:26:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

I heard and saw an HDV-Z1 camera tape projected and played on an excellent
system by Sony at the DV expo in LA. I was blown away by it. They only used the
on board stereo mike but it was extremely low noise and had decent phase
accuracy in stereo that held rock solid. So I can assume that the audio
compression is minimal ( phase accuracy is the first to get lost usually -
listen to your I pod at low res.). Bandwidth was good and detail was good. So
judging with just my ears there is nothing wrong with the audio from the camera
even at the price - and it was certainly better than any other DV corder I have
heard. And just guessing it was prob. very similar to the PD-4 ( I can hear the
howls already). The video was great of course - maybe better than digiBeta. No
compression artifacts on the 26 foot screen at all - of course infinity seemed a
little soft (that big) and color was not the vibrant one of the F900 nor was
detail anything like that of the F900, but the price is 1/15 th. Skintones were
OK. My personal take on Sony products is that they, as most other digital
manufacturers, release their products too early and turn the early buyers into
beta testers. wait for the upgraded version in a few months.
wolf
check out my books: www.coffeysound.com/store/books.html
http://www.locationsound.com/proaudio/ls/SBOK0002.html or
http://www.trewaudio.com/catalog/items/item96.htm


here some note from other newsgroups ( I CAN NOT VOUCH FOR ANY OF THIS)
check
http://www.sonyhdvinfo.com/


HDV-Z1 Info

Problems emerging:

Bogus progressive modes (“Cine Frame”) unless you like that 3:2 flicker - if
you go to 24 fr film... maybe... 24 fr video has that shitty strobing look that
folks describe as "film look" -- gimme a break - video is video

1/2 second freezes on dropouts which are common
A factor of one hour tape time?

Soft image on movement (bad for hand held?) -- did not really experience that (
compared to film - yes of course)

Poor Low Light ( but noise even at +9 is invisible! incredible)

12 bit reset problem for DV mode ( ouch)

------------

Notice to Owners of Sony Digital High Definition Camcorder
HDR-FX1/HDR-FX1E

19-01-2005

Sony recently learnt that limited units of its digital high definition
camcorder HDR-FX1/HDR-FX1E may exhibit the following condition :


When the audio mode of HDR-FX1/HDR-FX1E camcorder is switched to the 16-bit
setting (in DV mode), and the unit is then turned off, a software used in the
camcorder causes the unit to reset to the default 12-bit setting, though the LCD
indicator of the unit continues to display the 16-bit audio setting.

In Asia Pacific region, HDR-FX1/HDR-FX1E camcorder with the following serial
numbers may be affected :



Serial No.

HDR-FX1

From

To



1310001

1310050



1940001

1940039



1940041

1940041



1940045

1940045



1940049

1940100



1980001

1980138





Serial No.

HDR-FX1E

From

To



1340001

1340200



1390001

1390050



1410001

1410050



1410085

1410085

To remedy this situation, Sony is offering a software update at our service
centre to owners with the affected units; a limited warranty for the
HDR-FX1/HDR-FX1E camcorder also remains in effect. We request customers to
contact the nearest Sony authorized centre for more information. The software
update service in this region will be available in February 2005 and we request
customers to contact the nearest Sony authorised centre for more information in
February. A list of the Sony service centres can be found in the Support Network
page.

Sony sincerely regrets any inconvenience caused by this issue and will make
the utmost effort to prevent this type of incident from happening again.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

Kurihara Chiaki
Member

Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 39

pale colour
[[ Edited by Adminitrator. First part of this post cut. Remaining text starts a
new topic. ]]

BTW, in japanease BBS, few FX1 owners point out that there is a big problem in
FX1. They say that the HDV image sometimes freeze about
0.5 second when playing the tape. And they asked sony service and
the answer is that this problem is not BUG. it is one of mpeg2 spec.
So they say they can not use FX1 for bridal video.

Kerr Cook

That is disturbing!!! I wonder if "they" got "freeze" mixed up with "delay".

Anyway, in watching several HOURS of HDV recordings on HD TVs I never saw a
"freeze" or "lockup" or pause besides what I commanded. "Freeze" implies an
intermittant, unpredicable, period of non-functioning and non-usage. A 1/2second
occasional freeze would be unacceptable - not just for wedding recording but for
everything!!!

With the camcorder in HDV mode, I did see that the s-video output (SD) was
near instantaneous. (FX1 in REC/STBY mode, move camcorder while looking at TV
hooked up, how much delay?) The component outputs also were "live" and if
delayed it was very little.

But the Firewire output is definately delayed 1/2 second. Not frozen, just
delayed. If watching a Firewire connected HD TV as a monitor, there is a 1/2
delay which will drive people crazy trying to focus, pan, zoom in, etc. rapidly
if they are looking at the Firewire monitor. The 1/2 second is entirely
predictable and consistant - a result of the MPEG2 encoding (needing stateful
inspection of 8-12 frames to make the B, I, & P frames to output/record).

In other words, the delay of 1/2 second when using a Firewire monitor is not a
problem. I am sure most people will use a component analogue driven HD TV to
monitor while recording.

I saw a chart suggesting a 2 second delay with the FX1 and no delay with the
Z1. I doubt both of those numbers. (The chart was preliminary).

One thing I didn't do that I wished I had was look at the Firewire output on
one monitor and component on another WHILE playing a tape. Would they differ?
Probably not, or the component might be the slightly lagging one?

that is freeze, not delay
It is not delay. it is freeze. that is why they say they can not use for bridal.

>I never saw a "freeze" or "lockup" or pause

Me too. but the owner said the image become to still picture for 0.5 seconds.
He said he videotaped soccer scene.
He said he used sony DV tape DVM60ME for 6 hours first.
But nothing happened.
Next he used panasonic DVM60ME, then the freeze happened two
times in 60 minutes. next two DVM60ME was OK.

Sony answered it was a spec.
It is recording problem not playing problem, so it is not a problem of decording.
Sony said when there is some problem in reading or writing onto tape,
the FX1 saves the image by the unit of GOP.
1 GOP is 15 frames.15 frames is 0.5 seconds.

There are few onwers who pointed out this freeze problem.
But I have not come acress yet. Because I have not used that amount
of tape, nor I used that cheap tape.

Other poster said he come across freeze when he sees panasonic D-VHS video. So
they come to conclusion that it is a mpeg2 spec,so if they record
important scene like bridal, they use DV not HDV.
http://www.sonyhdvinfo.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1...


K Cook
Dropouts, if they happen, will be a significant problem then. What you describe
makes a lot of sense.

Paraphrasing in my words (please correct if I got the idea wrong) I'd say "a
dropout will cause 1/2 second freezeup or pause - whether when recording or
playback - because an entire GOP (Group of Pictures) of up to 15 frames will
need to be pulled in to the encoder/decoder before updated output can resume."

What is the GOP? I have seen it as 8, 8 to 12, and now 15 for the FX1.

Anyway, while the "quality" of the tape won't make digital difference to the
video "signal", I can see now why Sony is pushing their new "made for HDV"
DVM63HD tape. Minimizing the likelyhood of a dropout will minimize this
freezing. The 1/2second does correspond exactly to the Firewire output delay,
but I understand that it is a period of "dead time" / "Freeze" and entirely
undesired - happening when there is a dropout or something glitches the
encoder/decoder.

Thanks for the headsup to this and for making me think! I will be keeping an
eye out for any of those 1/2 second pauses.
__________________

plastique45
CON

+New HDV standard (1080i) as yet unsupported by ANY software! Should be
supported by most at year's end (but will it work fine in the first few
versions... it is yet uncertain)
+Interlaced. Needs to be de-interlace for film out, which means losing some
resolution even with frame blending (a la Magic Bullet) but still the highest
resolution available at this price point will result from this conversion.
--Audio: No uncompressed audio recording in HDV mode (an HDV standard,
unfortunately) and no XLR inputs (for serious work, I recommend an external
recorder, like a DAT)
-No interchangeable lens means buying a 72mm wide angle adapter ring from
Century optics or whatever for around $200. Still much cheaper than XL2 though
but not as good optically of course!
--MPEG2 HDV codec is relatively new and while it does not create as many
visible artifacts than DV, it creates a LOT more on rapid movement. Also,
certain software (such as Premiere Pro) have problems in performing precise
frame cutting in a standard when the compression uses 15 frames to calculate.
Not all software will edit HDV well at first.

Dear HDV users,

I have been following this forum for quite a while and I think it is time for
me to give alittle back.

I have been using the FX1E for a little over a week now here are som impressions:

The overall picture quality is great but it does need quite a lot of light. We
have been testing it agains a Sony HDCAM F900 and eyballing the resolution chart
on a Sony 20" HD monitor we get similar resolution i the middle but the FX1 is
softer on the edges. The F900 feels cleaner and sharper but I would say that it
is similar to comparing say a 570 to a PD 150 in SD. The 900 in interlace is
probaly 3 F-stops more senistive.

There is a major monitor problem in Europe - there are no consumer HDTV sets!
Our only possibility is using very expensive broadcast monitors. Please other
europeans - what are you monitoring on?
I am thinking about the quite cheep JVC 17" mutistandard...

I have had quite a few 1/2 second dropouts (I have never had any dropout
problems with my DSR-300 or PD-150 cameras). Apart from the dropouts freezing
the picture they also makes the demuxing in mpeg streemclip stop. I have done
quite a lot of testing using MPEG streemclip and DVHS cap. You can actually
capture and then demux to unscaled m2v - this can be imported directly into FCP
(although it takes a while to import). I then use Apple photojpeg at 90-100% for
my sequence and it plays back pretty smoothly on the timeline wihtout any raid.
Apples PhotoJpeg codec is very good and efficient - Aja and blackmagic use it
for compressed (check out http://codecs.onerivermedia.com/ for more info)
Once I'm happy I change sequence settings to 10bit uncompressed and output to
disk. This file can the go to HDCAM SDI via a decklink card or whatever.

I just wish I could use the FX-1 for playback from the timeline - does anybody
know if there is any HDV solution that supports preview through firewire from
the timeline?

This is just a few thoughts and I will try to participate in the discussion if
I can.

Yours,
/Mats
http://www.sonyhdvinfo.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4...

HD productions,

I was a little to fast in my last reply. Regarding color fringing -yes the
F-900 is better it seems that the whole image is little more "together". But
when compared outside the charts they look supricingly similar. Resolution wise
I would say that the FX1 is 100-200 lines less charp on the edges. But I think
it actually is quite nice to have a slight softening at the edges - it focuses
the attention. What really gives the HDCAM an edge is F-stops - you need way
more light - and sharpness in movement. the FX1 really softens as soon as there
is any movement. I know people seem to think it is kind of filmlike. But it is
really noticable when you start any motion.

By the way thanks Marc G for you kind words about Sweden - right now its not
that great with only a couple of hours sunlight (especially with the FX1 needing
soo much light).

And please HD Production be a little more gentle in you posts - I have seen
too much flames on to many lists.

/Mats
http://www.sonyhdvinfo.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4...


Expended Focus
This is a nice future. It zooms in the center of the LCD. BUT it gives a
signal problems during live videopeformance. So when camera DVout or HDV out is
connected to a videomixer for Live recordings without taping you cannot use
Expended Focus it will make a picture jump.





Ty Ford wrote:
I notice audio is
> recorded as compressed audio, not as linear audio.
>
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 3:17:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message news:1109tr0htvdnnd5@corp.supernews.com...
> "Ty Ford" wrote ...
> > As I'm going over the specs of the new Sony HDV camcorder,
> > I notice audio is recorded as compressed audio, not as linear
> > audio.
> >
> > I realize that video has been compressed rather massively in
> > lots of formats without a huge outcry, but I think audio is more
> > sensitive to compression, especially if one compression scheme
> > is followed by others during distribution.
> ...
> > Are we walking down a dangerous path here?
>
> Seems to me an admission that Sony doesn't consider this to be
> a serious, even SEMI-pro product. And/or further indication of
> the continuing decline of manufacturers' percieved consideration
> of the importance of audio performance.
>
Given the traditional level of importance that camcorder makers
have placed on audio quality, is a decline even possible? Maybe
this indicates that, despite the VX2000 furor, Sony (and others
probably) are still as clueless as ever about audio in video.
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 3:47:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

wolf wrote:
> I heard and saw an HDV-Z1 camera tape projected and played on an
> excellent system by Sony at the DV expo in LA. I was blown away by it.
> They only used the on board stereo mike but it was extremely low noise
> and had decent phase accuracy in stereo that held rock solid. So I can
> assume that the audio compression is minimal ( phase accuracy is the
> first to get lost usually - listen to your I pod at low res.). Bandwidth
> was good and detail was good. So judging with just my ears there is
> nothing wrong with the audio from the camera even at the price - and it
> was certainly better than any other DV corder I have heard. And just
> guessing it was prob. very similar to the PD-4 ( I can hear the howls
> already).

Had the audio been through post or was it just a simple recording?
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 6:10:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

> I would love to hear from you Ty and from other "resident reviewers"
> like Jay Rose about how the audio for these cameras tests out--I
> stongly believe that many of us will be dealing with them or their
> tracks very soon.

I'll probably be getting one in the next four weeks or so for testing.

But that's a problem of itself:

I can test the mic pres and the line in and the ADC - that's all defined
and there are standard procedures for measuring them.

But nobody's got standard tests for psychoacoustic data reduction. We
don't even know how to measure it, because the algorithm disappears when
you're testing normal pure tones, and it's stressed beyond design limits
if you're testing with noise.

I've spent a long time with the AES lossy-compression CD-ROM and am fairly
convinced that I know what to listen to with various kinds of
compression... that is, for a guy with good monitors but 55-year-old ears.
I just have no idea how to quantify it, other than using big groups of
listeners like Fraunhofer does.

--
Correct address is spell out the letter j, AT dplaydahtcom
Clio- and Emmy-winning sound design
Learn audio for video at www.dplay.com
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 6:46:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

Yes we are on a slippery slope, radio went down this path sometime ago.
Mainly to reduce staff, it was simpler to let a IBM PC run all the
programming and broadcast in MP3.

No outcry.

Nothing suprises me anymore, I guess good enough is good enough. Sad
really.

Ty Ford wrote:
> As I'm going over the specs of the new Sony HDV camcorder, I notice audio is
> recorded as compressed audio, not as linear audio.
>
> I realize that video has been compressed rather massively in lots of formats
> without a huge outcry, but I think audio is more sensitive to compression,
> especially if one compression scheme is followed by others during
> distribution.
>
> You have an ISDN V/O, a DVD, a broadcast. At the lowest posssible, that's
> three different compression algorithms (not counting more if you store the
> program on a networ or TV station's hard drive. If the station's transmitter
> is not located near master control, you might have a digital STL that uses
> it's own compression.
>
> Are we walking down a dangerous path here?
>
> Regards,
>
> Ty Ford
>
>
> -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
> stuff are at www.tyford.com
>
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 7:58:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

Philip Perkins wrote:

>>>>Are we walking down a dangerous path here?
>
>
> I do a lot of work on documentaries, many of them "personal docs" shot
> by the filmmakers themselves, often with little or no assistance.
> These Sony HDV cams are looking like they will be the "new thing" for
> '05, as the Panasonic miniDV was in '04---ie many are all starting
> their new projects on them. So far,
> NONE of the filmmakers I'd talked to about this understood that the
> audio they recorded in HDV mode was compressed and not as "fidelifull"
> as
> the audio they'd been getting on their miniDV rigs.

How surprising for Sony to not have made that clear.

> And the soundtracks for these films are already a struggle with
> uncompressed miniDV audio!
> My other question is how the interframe compression scheme used in
> these cameras will affect editorial--like what happens if you want the
> cut to happen on one of the "compressed" frames? How does TC apply
> to those compressed frames?

I don't know, but if I'm not mistaken the audio is woven into the picture
bitstream so the sound is like the AFM tracks on beta tape, you can't make an L
cut without laying the sound off first.
>
> I would love to hear from you Ty and from other "resident reviewers"
> like Jay Rose about how the audio for these cameras tests out--I
> stongly believe that many of us will be dealing with them or their
> tracks very soon.

Jay and I will see what we can do.

Best,
John
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 10:33:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

The camera is probably blend the video mpeg - peg compression , about 40
to1 with audio compression mpeg-1 layer 2 in the same working flow.
most of the new versions of editing systems already support the hdv as a
platform for editing ( fcp, vegas and what I heard the new version of avid )
since the hdv is mpeg , the system must open all frames between every 2
I frames and probably which probably have the all audio data , don't know
if the audio back converted to wav orany other format or stay as compress
file , but certainly looks that no one thinking that the additional audio
which comes to the system have to be converted to mpeg for layering , so
probably you decompress the files , edit , and then compress them again (
maybe the file have memory not to loose another data if it the type of the
file didn't changed)
eventually the mastering is depends on the final project and the sort of
audio will be as you like ,
from what I heard after record on that camera , the sound has significant
loss in low mid fq like you have on 320 mpeg , of course it s bad for music
recording but can live in Indy film , the preamp stage from what I heard is
much better then in all privies Sony models and in dv mode it sound the same
as dvx

--
Oleg Kaizerman (gebe) Hollyland

"Philip Perkins" <spamiser@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107623035.012875.193990@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>Are we walking down a dangerous path here?
>
> I do a lot of work on documentaries, many of them "personal docs" shot
> by the filmmakers themselves, often with little or no assistance.
> These Sony HDV cams are looking like they will be the "new thing" for
> '05, as the Panasonic miniDV was in '04---ie many are all starting
> their new projects on them. So far,
> NONE of the filmmakers I'd talked to about this understood that the
> audio they recorded in HDV mode was compressed and not as "fidelifull"
> as
> the audio they'd been getting on their miniDV rigs.
> And the soundtracks for these films are already a struggle with
> uncompressed miniDV audio!
> My other question is how the interframe compression scheme used in
> these cameras will affect editorial--like what happens if you want the
> cut to happen on one of the "compressed" frames? How does TC apply
> to those compressed frames?
>
> I would love to hear from you Ty and from other "resident reviewers"
> like Jay Rose about how the audio for these cameras tests out--I
> stongly believe that many of us will be dealing with them or their
> tracks very soon.
>
> Philip Perkins CAS
>
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 11:28:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

Ty Ford wrote:
> As I'm going over the specs of the new Sony HDV camcorder, I notice
> audio is recorded as compressed audio, not as linear audio.

"From the HDV FAQ at http://www.vasst.com/HDV/hdv-FAQ.htm

Is the Audio format of HDV any good?
The audio format of HDV is MPEG 1 Audio layer II. It has a bitrate of 384
Kbps, and can be very good. However, it's not suitable for heavy editing, so
audio like video, is best sent to the intermediary. (and is automatically
done so by the intermediary tools) Keep in mind that while this format is
not quite up to CD standards, it is quite good. DV camcorders record audio
in PCM format, so it's the same as a .wav file. The HDV audio spec is
similar to very high bitrate MP3 audio.
If you need high quality audio in a PCM format, we suggest you use a DAT or
other uncompressed source that can do a true 16 bit/24 bit recording at
48k/96khz sample rate. Remember, when you use the Cineform intermediary
audio is converted to a 48K/16 bit format, so you'll not need to worry about
the audio quality in editing."

Mike
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 11:28:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

Mike Kujbida wrote:
>
> From the HDV FAQ at http://www.vasst.com/HDV/hdv-FAQ.htm
>
> Is the Audio format of HDV any good?
> The audio format of HDV is MPEG 1 Audio layer II. It has a bitrate of 384
> Kbps, and can be very good.

I'm assuming that's two separate 192k channels and not joint stereo?






> If you need high quality audio in a PCM format, we suggest you use a DAT or
> other uncompressed source that can do a true 16 bit/24 bit recording at
> 48k/96khz sample rate.

Bravo!



> Remember, when you use the Cineform intermediary
> audio is converted to a 48K/16 bit format, so you'll not need to worry about
> the audio quality in editing."

That might have passed muster a few years back, but most edit platforms support 24-bit nowadays, and for good reason. What's the internal resolution on the Cineform?
February 5, 2005 11:28:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

“The New Digital Workflow: Case Studies from the Edge”



Meet the filmmakers as they share their insights and secrets. Understand the
impact of the new digital workflow and the powerful new tools that are helping
to create "the modern motion picture." Join us on the evening of March 4th for
one of the most interesting screenings you have ever attended and for our
full-day Saturday, March 5th seminar ( $ 150.00) as we look at how the
filmmakers crafted: Finding Neverland, Collateral, A Thousand Roads, Ocean’s
Twelve and Shark Tale.

Attached you will find our notice / flyer which include more details. You can
register on line at www.etcenter.org if you are interested in attending.


J. Eduardo Kéithe

Executive Administrative Assistant

Entertainment Technology Center at USC

ekeith@etcenter.org
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 11:47:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

"don" <howlco@telus.net> wrote in message
news:1107629049.021097.221450@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> "> that most productions won't pay for it, What are we to do ... Don
nothing :-)


--
Oleg Kaizerman (gebe) Hollyland
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 12:02:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

"wolf" <wolfvidREPLACEWITH_ATcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:fZWdndJR5YRfhpjfRVn-2w@comcast.com...
>I heard and saw an HDV-Z1 camera tape projected and played on an excellent
>system by Sony at the DV expo in LA. I was blown away by it. They only used
>the on board stereo mike but it was extremely low noise and had decent
>phase accuracy in stereo that held rock solid. So I can assume that the
>audio compression is minimal ( phase accuracy is the first to get lost
>usually - listen to your I pod at low res.).


Nonsense.


> Bandwidth was good and detail was good.

It is with all decent compression. Will someone please study reality before
making stupid statements about audio?


>So judging with just my ears there is nothing wrong with the audio from the
>camera even at the price - and it was certainly better than any other DV
>corder I have heard. And just guessing it was prob. very similar to the
>PD-4 ( I can hear the howls already). The video was great of course -
>maybe better than digiBeta. No compression artifacts on the 26 foot screen
>at all - of course infinity seemed a little soft (that big) and color was
>not the vibrant one of the F900 nor was detail anything like that of the
>F900, but the price is 1/15 th. Skintones were OK. My personal take on Sony
>products is that they, as most other digital manufacturers, release their
>products too early and turn the early buyers into beta testers. wait for
>the upgraded version in a few months.
> wolf
> check out my books: www.coffeysound.com/store/books.html
> http://www.locationsound.com/proaudio/ls/SBOK0002.html or
> http://www.trewaudio.com/catalog/items/item96.htm
>
>
> here some note from other newsgroups ( I CAN NOT VOUCH FOR ANY OF THIS)
> check
> http://www.sonyhdvinfo.com/
>
>
> HDV-Z1 Info
>
> Problems emerging:
>
> Bogus progressive modes (“Cine Frame”) unless you like that 3:2
> flicker - if you go to 24 fr film... maybe... 24 fr video has that shitty
> strobing look that folks describe as "film look" -- gimme a break - video
> is video
>
> 1/2 second freezes on dropouts which are common
> A factor of one hour tape time?
>
> Soft image on movement (bad for hand held?) -- did not really experience
> that ( compared to film - yes of course)
>
> Poor Low Light ( but noise even at +9 is invisible! incredible)
>
> 12 bit reset problem for DV mode ( ouch)
>
> ------------
>
> Notice to Owners of Sony Digital High Definition Camcorder
> HDR-FX1/HDR-FX1E
>
> 19-01-2005
>
> Sony recently learnt that limited units of its digital high definition
> camcorder HDR-FX1/HDR-FX1E may exhibit the following condition :
>
>
> When the audio mode of HDR-FX1/HDR-FX1E camcorder is switched to the
> 16-bit setting (in DV mode), and the unit is then turned off, a software
> used in the camcorder causes the unit to reset to the default 12-bit
> setting, though the LCD indicator of the unit continues to display the
> 16-bit audio setting.
>
> In Asia Pacific region, HDR-FX1/HDR-FX1E camcorder with the following
> serial numbers may be affected :
>
>
>
> Serial No.
>
> HDR-FX1
>
> From
>
> To
>
>
>
> 1310001
>
> 1310050
>
>
>
> 1940001
>
> 1940039
>
>
>
> 1940041
>
> 1940041
>
>
>
> 1940045
>
> 1940045
>
>
>
> 1940049
>
> 1940100
>
>
>
> 1980001
>
> 1980138
>
>
>
>
>
> Serial No.
>
> HDR-FX1E
>
> From
>
> To
>
>
>
> 1340001
>
> 1340200
>
>
>
> 1390001
>
> 1390050
>
>
>
> 1410001
>
> 1410050
>
>
>
> 1410085
>
> 1410085
>
> To remedy this situation, Sony is offering a software update at our
> service centre to owners with the affected units; a limited warranty for
> the HDR-FX1/HDR-FX1E camcorder also remains in effect. We request
> customers to contact the nearest Sony authorized centre for more
> information. The software update service in this region will be available
> in February 2005 and we request customers to contact the nearest Sony
> authorised centre for more information in February. A list of the Sony
> service centres can be found in the Support Network page.
>
> Sony sincerely regrets any inconvenience caused by this issue and will
> make the utmost effort to prevent this type of incident from happening
> again.
>
> Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.
>
> Kurihara Chiaki
> Member
>
> Join Date: Sep 2004
> Posts: 39
>
> pale colour
> [[ Edited by Adminitrator. First part of this post cut. Remaining text
> starts a new topic. ]]
>
> BTW, in japanease BBS, few FX1 owners point out that there is a big
> problem in FX1. They say that the HDV image sometimes freeze about
> 0.5 second when playing the tape. And they asked sony service and
> the answer is that this problem is not BUG. it is one of mpeg2 spec.
> So they say they can not use FX1 for bridal video.
>
> Kerr Cook
>
> That is disturbing!!! I wonder if "they" got "freeze" mixed up with
> "delay".
>
> Anyway, in watching several HOURS of HDV recordings on HD TVs I never saw
> a "freeze" or "lockup" or pause besides what I commanded. "Freeze" implies
> an intermittant, unpredicable, period of non-functioning and non-usage. A
> 1/2second occasional freeze would be unacceptable - not just for wedding
> recording but for everything!!!
>
> With the camcorder in HDV mode, I did see that the s-video output (SD)
> was near instantaneous. (FX1 in REC/STBY mode, move camcorder while
> looking at TV hooked up, how much delay?) The component outputs also were
> "live" and if delayed it was very little.
>
> But the Firewire output is definately delayed 1/2 second. Not frozen,
> just delayed. If watching a Firewire connected HD TV as a monitor, there
> is a 1/2 delay which will drive people crazy trying to focus, pan, zoom
> in, etc. rapidly if they are looking at the Firewire monitor. The 1/2
> second is entirely predictable and consistant - a result of the MPEG2
> encoding (needing stateful inspection of 8-12 frames to make the B, I, & P
> frames to output/record).
>
> In other words, the delay of 1/2 second when using a Firewire monitor is
> not a problem. I am sure most people will use a component analogue driven
> HD TV to monitor while recording.
>
> I saw a chart suggesting a 2 second delay with the FX1 and no delay with
> the Z1. I doubt both of those numbers. (The chart was preliminary).
>
> One thing I didn't do that I wished I had was look at the Firewire output
> on one monitor and component on another WHILE playing a tape. Would they
> differ? Probably not, or the component might be the slightly lagging one?
>
> that is freeze, not delay
> It is not delay. it is freeze. that is why they say they can not use for
> bridal.
>
> >I never saw a "freeze" or "lockup" or pause
>
> Me too. but the owner said the image become to still picture for 0.5
> seconds.
> He said he videotaped soccer scene.
> He said he used sony DV tape DVM60ME for 6 hours first.
> But nothing happened.
> Next he used panasonic DVM60ME, then the freeze happened two
> times in 60 minutes. next two DVM60ME was OK.
>
> Sony answered it was a spec.
> It is recording problem not playing problem, so it is not a problem of
> decording.
> Sony said when there is some problem in reading or writing onto tape,
> the FX1 saves the image by the unit of GOP.
> 1 GOP is 15 frames.15 frames is 0.5 seconds.
>
> There are few onwers who pointed out this freeze problem.
> But I have not come acress yet. Because I have not used that amount
> of tape, nor I used that cheap tape.
>
> Other poster said he come across freeze when he sees panasonic D-VHS
> video. So they come to conclusion that it is a mpeg2 spec,so if they
> record
> important scene like bridal, they use DV not HDV.
> http://www.sonyhdvinfo.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1...
>
>
> K Cook
> Dropouts, if they happen, will be a significant problem then. What you
> describe makes a lot of sense.
>
> Paraphrasing in my words (please correct if I got the idea wrong) I'd say
> "a dropout will cause 1/2 second freezeup or pause - whether when
> recording or playback - because an entire GOP (Group of Pictures) of up to
> 15 frames will need to be pulled in to the encoder/decoder before updated
> output can resume."
>
> What is the GOP? I have seen it as 8, 8 to 12, and now 15 for the FX1.
>
> Anyway, while the "quality" of the tape won't make digital difference to
> the video "signal", I can see now why Sony is pushing their new "made for
> HDV" DVM63HD tape. Minimizing the likelyhood of a dropout will minimize
> this freezing. The 1/2second does correspond exactly to the Firewire
> output delay, but I understand that it is a period of "dead time" /
> "Freeze" and entirely undesired - happening when there is a dropout or
> something glitches the encoder/decoder.
>
> Thanks for the headsup to this and for making me think! I will be keeping
> an eye out for any of those 1/2 second pauses.
> __________________
>
> plastique45
> CON
>
> +New HDV standard (1080i) as yet unsupported by ANY software! Should be
> supported by most at year's end (but will it work fine in the first few
> versions... it is yet uncertain)
> +Interlaced. Needs to be de-interlace for film out, which means losing
> some resolution even with frame blending (a la Magic Bullet) but still the
> highest resolution available at this price point will result from this
> conversion.
> --Audio: No uncompressed audio recording in HDV mode (an HDV standard,
> unfortunately) and no XLR inputs (for serious work, I recommend an
> external recorder, like a DAT)
> -No interchangeable lens means buying a 72mm wide angle adapter ring from
> Century optics or whatever for around $200. Still much cheaper than XL2
> though but not as good optically of course!
> --MPEG2 HDV codec is relatively new and while it does not create as many
> visible artifacts than DV, it creates a LOT more on rapid movement. Also,
> certain software (such as Premiere Pro) have problems in performing
> precise frame cutting in a standard when the compression uses 15 frames to
> calculate. Not all software will edit HDV well at first.
>
> Dear HDV users,
>
> I have been following this forum for quite a while and I think it is time
> for me to give alittle back.
>
> I have been using the FX1E for a little over a week now here are som
> impressions:
>
> The overall picture quality is great but it does need quite a lot of
> light. We have been testing it agains a Sony HDCAM F900 and eyballing the
> resolution chart on a Sony 20" HD monitor we get similar resolution i the
> middle but the FX1 is softer on the edges. The F900 feels cleaner and
> sharper but I would say that it is similar to comparing say a 570 to a PD
> 150 in SD. The 900 in interlace is probaly 3 F-stops more senistive.
>
> There is a major monitor problem in Europe - there are no consumer HDTV
> sets! Our only possibility is using very expensive broadcast monitors.
> Please other europeans - what are you monitoring on?
> I am thinking about the quite cheep JVC 17" mutistandard...
>
> I have had quite a few 1/2 second dropouts (I have never had any dropout
> problems with my DSR-300 or PD-150 cameras). Apart from the dropouts
> freezing the picture they also makes the demuxing in mpeg streemclip stop.
> I have done quite a lot of testing using MPEG streemclip and DVHS cap. You
> can actually capture and then demux to unscaled m2v - this can be imported
> directly into FCP (although it takes a while to import). I then use Apple
> photojpeg at 90-100% for my sequence and it plays back pretty smoothly on
> the timeline wihtout any raid. Apples PhotoJpeg codec is very good and
> efficient - Aja and blackmagic use it for compressed (check out
> http://codecs.onerivermedia.com/ for more info)
> Once I'm happy I change sequence settings to 10bit uncompressed and
> output to disk. This file can the go to HDCAM SDI via a decklink card or
> whatever.
>
> I just wish I could use the FX-1 for playback from the timeline - does
> anybody know if there is any HDV solution that supports preview through
> firewire from the timeline?
>
> This is just a few thoughts and I will try to participate in the
> discussion if I can.
>
> Yours,
> /Mats
> http://www.sonyhdvinfo.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4...
>
> HD productions,
>
> I was a little to fast in my last reply. Regarding color fringing -yes
> the F-900 is better it seems that the whole image is little more
> "together". But when compared outside the charts they look supricingly
> similar. Resolution wise I would say that the FX1 is 100-200 lines less
> charp on the edges. But I think it actually is quite nice to have a slight
> softening at the edges - it focuses the attention. What really gives the
> HDCAM an edge is F-stops - you need way more light - and sharpness in
> movement. the FX1 really softens as soon as there is any movement. I know
> people seem to think it is kind of filmlike. But it is really noticable
> when you start any motion.
>
> By the way thanks Marc G for you kind words about Sweden - right now its
> not that great with only a couple of hours sunlight (especially with the
> FX1 needing soo much light).
>
> And please HD Production be a little more gentle in you posts - I have
> seen too much flames on to many lists.
>
> /Mats
> http://www.sonyhdvinfo.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4...
>
>
> Expended Focus
> This is a nice future. It zooms in the center of the LCD. BUT it gives a
> signal problems during live videopeformance. So when camera DVout or HDV
> out is connected to a videomixer for Live recordings without taping you
> cannot use Expended Focus it will make a picture jump.
>
>
>
>
>
> Ty Ford wrote:
> I notice audio is
>> recorded as compressed audio, not as linear audio.
>>
>
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 12:04:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

"Kurt Albershardt" <kurt@nv.net> wrote in message
news:36ldeiF52h4nuU1@individual.net...
> Mike Kujbida wrote:
>>
>> From the HDV FAQ at http://www.vasst.com/HDV/hdv-FAQ.htm
>>
>> Is the Audio format of HDV any good?
>> The audio format of HDV is MPEG 1 Audio layer II. It has a bitrate of 384
>> Kbps, and can be very good.
>
> I'm assuming that's two separate 192k channels and not joint stereo?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> If you need high quality audio in a PCM format, we suggest you use a DAT
>> or
>> other uncompressed source that can do a true 16 bit/24 bit recording at
>> 48k/96khz sample rate.

This is a contradiction in terms. 48k khz sample rate HA!. It is 48
ks/sec. Hz is a frequency.

>
> Bravo!
>
>
>
>> Remember, when you use the Cineform intermediary
>> audio is converted to a 48K/16 bit format, so you'll not need to worry
>> about
>> the audio quality in editing."
>
> That might have passed muster a few years back, but most edit platforms
> support 24-bit nowadays, and for good reason. What's the internal
> resolution on the Cineform?
>
>
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 12:07:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

PS

20 kHz is the bandwidth of hearing. Even CD has headroom for anti-aliasing
fall-off. So what is the point of 98 ks/sec sampling?

The dynamic range of hearing is at best 120-130 dB. So what is the point of
24 bit sampling?


"Kurt Albershardt" <kurt@nv.net> wrote in message
news:36ldeiF52h4nuU1@individual.net...
> Mike Kujbida wrote:
>>
>> From the HDV FAQ at http://www.vasst.com/HDV/hdv-FAQ.htm
>>
>> Is the Audio format of HDV any good?
>> The audio format of HDV is MPEG 1 Audio layer II. It has a bitrate of 384
>> Kbps, and can be very good.
>
> I'm assuming that's two separate 192k channels and not joint stereo?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> If you need high quality audio in a PCM format, we suggest you use a DAT
>> or
>> other uncompressed source that can do a true 16 bit/24 bit recording at
>> 48k/96khz sample rate.
>
> Bravo!
>
>
>
>> Remember, when you use the Cineform intermediary
>> audio is converted to a 48K/16 bit format, so you'll not need to worry
>> about
>> the audio quality in editing."
>
> That might have passed muster a few years back, but most edit platforms
> support 24-bit nowadays, and for good reason. What's the internal
> resolution on the Cineform?
>
>
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 12:24:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

Did you check it in dv or hd mode?

--
Oleg Kaizerman (gebe) Hollyland

"wolf" <wolfvidREPLACEWITH_ATcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:fZWdndJR5YRfhpjfRVn-2w@comcast.com...
>I heard and saw an HDV-Z1 camera tape projected and played on an excellent
>system by Sony at the DV expo in LA. I was blown away by it. They only used
>the on board stereo mike but it was extremely low noise and had decent
>phase accuracy in stereo that held rock solid. So I can assume that the
>audio compression is minimal ( phase accuracy is the first to get lost
>usually - listen to your I pod at low res.). Bandwidth was good and detail
>was good. So judging with just my ears there is nothing wrong with the
>audio from the camera even at the price - and it was certainly better than
>any other DV corder I have heard. And just guessing it was prob. very
>similar to the PD-4 ( I can hear the howls already). The video was great of
>course - maybe better than digiBeta. No compression artifacts on the 26
>foot screen at all - of course infinity seemed a little soft (that big) and
>color was not the vibrant one of the F900 nor was detail anything like that
>of the F900, but the price is 1/15 th. Skintones were OK. My personal take
>on Sony products is that they, as most other digital manufacturers, release
>their products too early and turn the early buyers into beta testers. wait
>for the upgraded version in a few months.
> wolf
> check out my books: www.coffeysound.com/store/books.html
> http://www.locationsound.com/proaudio/ls/SBOK0002.html or
> http://www.trewaudio.com/catalog/items/item96.htm
>
>
> here some note from other newsgroups ( I CAN NOT VOUCH FOR ANY OF THIS)
> check
> http://www.sonyhdvinfo.com/
>
>
> HDV-Z1 Info
>
> Problems emerging:
>
> Bogus progressive modes (“Cine Frame”) unless you like that 3:2
> flicker - if you go to 24 fr film... maybe... 24 fr video has that shitty
> strobing look that folks describe as "film look" -- gimme a break - video
> is video
>
> 1/2 second freezes on dropouts which are common
> A factor of one hour tape time?
>
> Soft image on movement (bad for hand held?) -- did not really experience
> that ( compared to film - yes of course)
>
> Poor Low Light ( but noise even at +9 is invisible! incredible)
>
> 12 bit reset problem for DV mode ( ouch)
>
> ------------
>
> Notice to Owners of Sony Digital High Definition Camcorder
> HDR-FX1/HDR-FX1E
>
> 19-01-2005
>
> Sony recently learnt that limited units of its digital high definition
> camcorder HDR-FX1/HDR-FX1E may exhibit the following condition :
>
>
> When the audio mode of HDR-FX1/HDR-FX1E camcorder is switched to the
> 16-bit setting (in DV mode), and the unit is then turned off, a software
> used in the camcorder causes the unit to reset to the default 12-bit
> setting, though the LCD indicator of the unit continues to display the
> 16-bit audio setting.
>
> In Asia Pacific region, HDR-FX1/HDR-FX1E camcorder with the following
> serial numbers may be affected :
>
>
>
> Serial No.
>
> HDR-FX1
>
> From
>
> To
>
>
>
> 1310001
>
> 1310050
>
>
>
> 1940001
>
> 1940039
>
>
>
> 1940041
>
> 1940041
>
>
>
> 1940045
>
> 1940045
>
>
>
> 1940049
>
> 1940100
>
>
>
> 1980001
>
> 1980138
>
>
>
>
>
> Serial No.
>
> HDR-FX1E
>
> From
>
> To
>
>
>
> 1340001
>
> 1340200
>
>
>
> 1390001
>
> 1390050
>
>
>
> 1410001
>
> 1410050
>
>
>
> 1410085
>
> 1410085
>
> To remedy this situation, Sony is offering a software update at our
> service centre to owners with the affected units; a limited warranty for
> the HDR-FX1/HDR-FX1E camcorder also remains in effect. We request
> customers to contact the nearest Sony authorized centre for more
> information. The software update service in this region will be available
> in February 2005 and we request customers to contact the nearest Sony
> authorised centre for more information in February. A list of the Sony
> service centres can be found in the Support Network page.
>
> Sony sincerely regrets any inconvenience caused by this issue and will
> make the utmost effort to prevent this type of incident from happening
> again.
>
> Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.
>
> Kurihara Chiaki
> Member
>
> Join Date: Sep 2004
> Posts: 39
>
> pale colour
> [[ Edited by Adminitrator. First part of this post cut. Remaining text
> starts a new topic. ]]
>
> BTW, in japanease BBS, few FX1 owners point out that there is a big
> problem in FX1. They say that the HDV image sometimes freeze about
> 0.5 second when playing the tape. And they asked sony service and
> the answer is that this problem is not BUG. it is one of mpeg2 spec.
> So they say they can not use FX1 for bridal video.
>
> Kerr Cook
>
> That is disturbing!!! I wonder if "they" got "freeze" mixed up with
> "delay".
>
> Anyway, in watching several HOURS of HDV recordings on HD TVs I never saw
> a "freeze" or "lockup" or pause besides what I commanded. "Freeze" implies
> an intermittant, unpredicable, period of non-functioning and non-usage. A
> 1/2second occasional freeze would be unacceptable - not just for wedding
> recording but for everything!!!
>
> With the camcorder in HDV mode, I did see that the s-video output (SD)
> was near instantaneous. (FX1 in REC/STBY mode, move camcorder while
> looking at TV hooked up, how much delay?) The component outputs also were
> "live" and if delayed it was very little.
>
> But the Firewire output is definately delayed 1/2 second. Not frozen,
> just delayed. If watching a Firewire connected HD TV as a monitor, there
> is a 1/2 delay which will drive people crazy trying to focus, pan, zoom
> in, etc. rapidly if they are looking at the Firewire monitor. The 1/2
> second is entirely predictable and consistant - a result of the MPEG2
> encoding (needing stateful inspection of 8-12 frames to make the B, I, & P
> frames to output/record).
>
> In other words, the delay of 1/2 second when using a Firewire monitor is
> not a problem. I am sure most people will use a component analogue driven
> HD TV to monitor while recording.
>
> I saw a chart suggesting a 2 second delay with the FX1 and no delay with
> the Z1. I doubt both of those numbers. (The chart was preliminary).
>
> One thing I didn't do that I wished I had was look at the Firewire output
> on one monitor and component on another WHILE playing a tape. Would they
> differ? Probably not, or the component might be the slightly lagging one?
>
> that is freeze, not delay
> It is not delay. it is freeze. that is why they say they can not use for
> bridal.
>
> >I never saw a "freeze" or "lockup" or pause
>
> Me too. but the owner said the image become to still picture for 0.5
> seconds.
> He said he videotaped soccer scene.
> He said he used sony DV tape DVM60ME for 6 hours first.
> But nothing happened.
> Next he used panasonic DVM60ME, then the freeze happened two
> times in 60 minutes. next two DVM60ME was OK.
>
> Sony answered it was a spec.
> It is recording problem not playing problem, so it is not a problem of
> decording.
> Sony said when there is some problem in reading or writing onto tape,
> the FX1 saves the image by the unit of GOP.
> 1 GOP is 15 frames.15 frames is 0.5 seconds.
>
> There are few onwers who pointed out this freeze problem.
> But I have not come acress yet. Because I have not used that amount
> of tape, nor I used that cheap tape.
>
> Other poster said he come across freeze when he sees panasonic D-VHS
> video. So they come to conclusion that it is a mpeg2 spec,so if they
> record
> important scene like bridal, they use DV not HDV.
> http://www.sonyhdvinfo.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1...
>
>
> K Cook
> Dropouts, if they happen, will be a significant problem then. What you
> describe makes a lot of sense.
>
> Paraphrasing in my words (please correct if I got the idea wrong) I'd say
> "a dropout will cause 1/2 second freezeup or pause - whether when
> recording or playback - because an entire GOP (Group of Pictures) of up to
> 15 frames will need to be pulled in to the encoder/decoder before updated
> output can resume."
>
> What is the GOP? I have seen it as 8, 8 to 12, and now 15 for the FX1.
>
> Anyway, while the "quality" of the tape won't make digital difference to
> the video "signal", I can see now why Sony is pushing their new "made for
> HDV" DVM63HD tape. Minimizing the likelyhood of a dropout will minimize
> this freezing. The 1/2second does correspond exactly to the Firewire
> output delay, but I understand that it is a period of "dead time" /
> "Freeze" and entirely undesired - happening when there is a dropout or
> something glitches the encoder/decoder.
>
> Thanks for the headsup to this and for making me think! I will be keeping
> an eye out for any of those 1/2 second pauses.
> __________________
>
> plastique45
> CON
>
> +New HDV standard (1080i) as yet unsupported by ANY software! Should be
> supported by most at year's end (but will it work fine in the first few
> versions... it is yet uncertain)
> +Interlaced. Needs to be de-interlace for film out, which means losing
> some resolution even with frame blending (a la Magic Bullet) but still the
> highest resolution available at this price point will result from this
> conversion.
> --Audio: No uncompressed audio recording in HDV mode (an HDV standard,
> unfortunately) and no XLR inputs (for serious work, I recommend an
> external recorder, like a DAT)
> -No interchangeable lens means buying a 72mm wide angle adapter ring from
> Century optics or whatever for around $200. Still much cheaper than XL2
> though but not as good optically of course!
> --MPEG2 HDV codec is relatively new and while it does not create as many
> visible artifacts than DV, it creates a LOT more on rapid movement. Also,
> certain software (such as Premiere Pro) have problems in performing
> precise frame cutting in a standard when the compression uses 15 frames to
> calculate. Not all software will edit HDV well at first.
>
> Dear HDV users,
>
> I have been following this forum for quite a while and I think it is time
> for me to give alittle back.
>
> I have been using the FX1E for a little over a week now here are som
> impressions:
>
> The overall picture quality is great but it does need quite a lot of
> light. We have been testing it agains a Sony HDCAM F900 and eyballing the
> resolution chart on a Sony 20" HD monitor we get similar resolution i the
> middle but the FX1 is softer on the edges. The F900 feels cleaner and
> sharper but I would say that it is similar to comparing say a 570 to a PD
> 150 in SD. The 900 in interlace is probaly 3 F-stops more senistive.
>
> There is a major monitor problem in Europe - there are no consumer HDTV
> sets! Our only possibility is using very expensive broadcast monitors.
> Please other europeans - what are you monitoring on?
> I am thinking about the quite cheep JVC 17" mutistandard...
>
> I have had quite a few 1/2 second dropouts (I have never had any dropout
> problems with my DSR-300 or PD-150 cameras). Apart from the dropouts
> freezing the picture they also makes the demuxing in mpeg streemclip stop.
> I have done quite a lot of testing using MPEG streemclip and DVHS cap. You
> can actually capture and then demux to unscaled m2v - this can be imported
> directly into FCP (although it takes a while to import). I then use Apple
> photojpeg at 90-100% for my sequence and it plays back pretty smoothly on
> the timeline wihtout any raid. Apples PhotoJpeg codec is very good and
> efficient - Aja and blackmagic use it for compressed (check out
> http://codecs.onerivermedia.com/ for more info)
> Once I'm happy I change sequence settings to 10bit uncompressed and
> output to disk. This file can the go to HDCAM SDI via a decklink card or
> whatever.
>
> I just wish I could use the FX-1 for playback from the timeline - does
> anybody know if there is any HDV solution that supports preview through
> firewire from the timeline?
>
> This is just a few thoughts and I will try to participate in the
> discussion if I can.
>
> Yours,
> /Mats
> http://www.sonyhdvinfo.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4...
>
> HD productions,
>
> I was a little to fast in my last reply. Regarding color fringing -yes
> the F-900 is better it seems that the whole image is little more
> "together". But when compared outside the charts they look supricingly
> similar. Resolution wise I would say that the FX1 is 100-200 lines less
> charp on the edges. But I think it actually is quite nice to have a slight
> softening at the edges - it focuses the attention. What really gives the
> HDCAM an edge is F-stops - you need way more light - and sharpness in
> movement. the FX1 really softens as soon as there is any movement. I know
> people seem to think it is kind of filmlike. But it is really noticable
> when you start any motion.
>
> By the way thanks Marc G for you kind words about Sweden - right now its
> not that great with only a couple of hours sunlight (especially with the
> FX1 needing soo much light).
>
> And please HD Production be a little more gentle in you posts - I have
> seen too much flames on to many lists.
>
> /Mats
> http://www.sonyhdvinfo.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4...
>
>
> Expended Focus
> This is a nice future. It zooms in the center of the LCD. BUT it gives a
> signal problems during live videopeformance. So when camera DVout or HDV
> out is connected to a videomixer for Live recordings without taping you
> cannot use Expended Focus it will make a picture jump.
>
>
>
>
>
> Ty Ford wrote:
> I notice audio is
>> recorded as compressed audio, not as linear audio.
>>
>
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 12:50:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

Philip Perkins wrote:
> NONE of the filmmakers I'd talked to about this understood that the
> audio they recorded in HDV mode was compressed...

I've fed the Sony HDV camcorder audio from a couple different boom mics
(AT4073 and CS-1) and a 302. Got usable dialog. More than that, I
haven't really evaluated.


> My other question is how the interframe compression scheme used in
> these cameras will affect editorial--like what happens if you want
the
> cut to happen on one of the "compressed" frames?

Many NLEs transcode (or will soon transcode) HDV on capture into an
I-frame format. So in post, you won't need to worry about B and P
frames. I've edited HDV in a couple of these systems. It's pretty
painless. As for the format, it's great for some stuff (interviews,
calm scenics) not so good for other (motion).


> I would love to hear from you Ty and from other "resident reviewers"
> like Jay Rose about how the audio for these cameras tests out--

Philip, I'm out in Wash DC all next week (but not working with HDV on
that trip). Now that Sundance is behind us, we still need to get
together and mess around with the HDV camcorder I usually have in my
office. I'll ping you Feb 15 or so...

Jim
POV Media
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 1:22:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

Alpha wrote:
>
> "Kurt Albershardt" <kurt@nv.net> wrote in message
> news:36ldeiF52h4nuU1@individual.net...
>
>> Mike Kujbida wrote:
>>
>>> Remember, when you use the Cineform intermediary
>>> audio is converted to a 48K/16 bit format, so you'll not need to worry
>>> about the audio quality in editing.
>>
>> That might have passed muster a few years back, but most edit platforms
>> support 24-bit nowadays, and for good reason. What's the internal
>> resolution on the Cineform?
>>
>>
>> The dynamic range of hearing is at best 120-130 dB. So what is the point
>> of 24 bit sampling?

As an acquisition format, 24-bit allows much more room for error in setting record levels. The analog electronics have to be up to the task, of course--so it makes little sense on a camcorder.

As a postproduction format, 24-bit files (hopefully coupled with much deeper internal registers) allows far more processing stages to occur before artifacts become objectionable.







P.S.

Please learn to quote posts properly. Top posting is discouraged here (on r.a.m.p.s. at least.)
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 1:36:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

up think you would have to record some dissent Verdi aria , transfer the
hdv to nle , to encode it to wav. transfer the same aria thru some good a
to d .
then try to hear left and right or maybe to do invert faze to hear what is
not on the hdv


--
Oleg Kaizerman (gebe) Hollyland
"Jay Rose CAS" <SEE-SIGFILE@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:SEE-SIGFILE-0502051510490001@192.168.1.101...
>
>> I would love to hear from you Ty and from other "resident reviewers"
>> like Jay Rose about how the audio for these cameras tests out--I
>> stongly believe that many of us will be dealing with them or their
>> tracks very soon.
>
> I'll probably be getting one in the next four weeks or so for testing.
>
> But that's a problem of itself:
>
> I can test the mic pres and the line in and the ADC - that's all defined
> and there are standard procedures for measuring them.
>
> But nobody's got standard tests for psychoacoustic data reduction. We
> don't even know how to measure it, because the algorithm disappears when
> you're testing normal pure tones, and it's stressed beyond design limits
> if you're testing with noise.
>
> I've spent a long time with the AES lossy-compression CD-ROM and am fairly
> convinced that I know what to listen to with various kinds of
> compression... that is, for a guy with good monitors but 55-year-old ears.
> I just have no idea how to quantify it, other than using big groups of
> listeners like Fraunhofer does.
>
> --
> Correct address is spell out the letter j, AT dplaydahtcom
> Clio- and Emmy-winning sound design
> Learn audio for video at www.dplay.com
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 1:36:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

sorry 'know' not 'no'....typed too fast.
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 1:49:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

the camera also can export dv after you did shoot hdv , so you get 48/18 to
the nle , its might be no more different then the outside decoding - so you
actually can hear what can be the worse situation

Oleg


"Jay Rose CAS" <SEE-SIGFILE@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:SEE-SIGFILE-0502051510490001@192.168.1.101...
>
>> I would love to hear from you Ty and from other "resident reviewers"
>> like Jay Rose about how the audio for these cameras tests out--I
>> stongly believe that many of us will be dealing with them or their
>> tracks very soon.
>
> I'll probably be getting one in the next four weeks or so for testing.
>
> But that's a problem of itself:
>
> I can test the mic pres and the line in and the ADC - that's all defined
> and there are standard procedures for measuring them.
>
> But nobody's got standard tests for psychoacoustic data reduction. We
> don't even know how to measure it, because the algorithm disappears when
> you're testing normal pure tones, and it's stressed beyond design limits
> if you're testing with noise.
>
> I've spent a long time with the AES lossy-compression CD-ROM and am fairly
> convinced that I know what to listen to with various kinds of
> compression... that is, for a guy with good monitors but 55-year-old ears.
> I just have no idea how to quantify it, other than using big groups of
> listeners like Fraunhofer does.
>
> --
> Correct address is spell out the letter j, AT dplaydahtcom
> Clio- and Emmy-winning sound design
> Learn audio for video at www.dplay.com
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 2:06:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

Jay - do it with Genesis SELLING ENGLAND BY THE POUND with sqn 5 in the
middle between your record player and the camera , then with PinkFloid
Money and the last song of the Dark side of the Moon :-), I am sure
there would be few penny difference in a/b test :-)

--
Oleg Kaizerman (gebe) Hollyland

"Jay Rose CAS" <SEE-SIGFILE@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:SEE-SIGFILE-0502051510490001@192.168.1.101...
>
>> I would love to hear from you Ty and from other "resident reviewers"
>> like Jay Rose about how the audio for these cameras tests out--I
>> stongly believe that many of us will be dealing with them or their
>> tracks very soon.
>
> I'll probably be getting one in the next four weeks or so for testing.
>
> But that's a problem of itself:
>
> I can test the mic pres and the line in and the ADC - that's all defined
> and there are standard procedures for measuring them.
>
> But nobody's got standard tests for psychoacoustic data reduction. We
> don't even know how to measure it, because the algorithm disappears when
> you're testing normal pure tones, and it's stressed beyond design limits
> if you're testing with noise.
>
> I've spent a long time with the AES lossy-compression CD-ROM and am fairly
> convinced that I know what to listen to with various kinds of
> compression... that is, for a guy with good monitors but 55-year-old ears.
> I just have no idea how to quantify it, other than using big groups of
> listeners like Fraunhofer does.
>
> --
> Correct address is spell out the letter j, AT dplaydahtcom
> Clio- and Emmy-winning sound design
> Learn audio for video at www.dplay.com
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 1:27:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

>> The issue isn't 'can we hear what was taken away' - of course we can -
>
> No. Laboratory tests indicate that in normal listening conditions people CAN
> NOT hear the difference. It is based on the psychoacoustics of masking.

My point is, since HDV audio is starting with less than linear PCM, what
happens in further stages distribution and broadcast where additional data
compression algorithms are applied to audio that is already data compressed.

OTOH, would we be any better off if the audio was captured at 192 kHz and
24-bit before data reduction, or would squeezing 16-bit 48kHz to the same
final size be worse?

It might make sense to go with better (24-bit, 192kHz) A/D converters, might
it not?

Dunno.

Regards,

Ty Ford




-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 1:34:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 14:20:44 -0500, wolf wrote
(in article <fZWdndJR5YRfhpjfRVn-2w@comcast.com>):

> Subject: Re: The HDV format...Compressed audio?
> From: wolf <wolfvidREPLACEWITH_ATcomcast.net>
> Date: Yesterday 2:20 PM
> Newsgroups: rec.video.desktop, rec.video.production,
> rec.arts.movies.production.sound
>
> I heard and saw an HDV-Z1 camera tape projected and played on an excellent
> system by Sony at the DV expo in LA. I was blown away by it. They only used
> the on board stereo mike but it was extremely low noise and had decent phase

> accuracy in stereo that held rock solid. So I can assume that the audio
> compression is minimal ( phase accuracy is the first to get lost usually -
> listen to your I pod at low res.). Bandwidth was good and detail was good. So

> judging with just my ears there is nothing wrong with the audio from the
> camera even at the price - and it was certainly better than any other DV
> corder I have heard

Again,

I'm not so much concerned about the single, first generation sound. What
concerns me is what happens when that audio is distributed; sent to DVD,
and/or broadcast, where other compression algorithms are typically applied.

The Herb Squire's demonstrations at AES NY a number of years ago have made me
very aware that we need to think beyond the first generation...all the way to
distribution and satellite or HDTV broadcast, all of which have additional
compression schemes.

Regards,

Ty Ford


-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 7:52:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 21:07:38 -0800, "Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote:

>20 kHz is the bandwidth of hearing. Even CD has headroom for anti-aliasing
>fall-off. So what is the point of 98 ks/sec sampling?

It is done so you don't get funny mirror-frequencies coming back into
your original audio, once you go back to the analogue domain. And,
audiophiles also say that higher sample-rates, also sample the
harmonics of the higher frequencies.

>The dynamic range of hearing is at best 120-130 dB. So what is the point of
>24 bit sampling?

More accuracy reduces rounding errors during editing, so the
mutilation of your original sound gets less.

cheers

-martin-

--
Can the terror of spam be included in the war on terror?
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 7:52:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

"Martin Heffels" <marybooks56@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vvbb01tog03tt2mou3mp22qng34qieuk3q@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 21:07:38 -0800, "Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote:
>
>>20 kHz is the bandwidth of hearing. Even CD has headroom for
>>anti-aliasing
>>fall-off. So what is the point of 98 ks/sec sampling?
>
> It is done so you don't get funny mirror-frequencies coming back into
> your original audio, once you go back to the analogue domain. And,
> audiophiles also say that higher sample-rates, also sample the
> harmonics of the higher frequencies.
>
>>The dynamic range of hearing is at best 120-130 dB. So what is the point
>>of
>>24 bit sampling?
>
> More accuracy reduces rounding errors during editing, so the
> mutilation of your original sound gets less.
>
> cheers
>
> -martin-
>
> --
> Can the terror of spam be included in the war on terror?

You can't hear higher than 20 Khz. Antialiasing is done with oversampling
and filtering.

Numerical accuracy in editing and effects is a different matter entirely.
It depends not a bit on the sampling rate.
February 6, 2005 7:52:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

I suggest following reading material: ( it will clear your mind)


PRODUCING GREAT SOUND FOR DIGITAL VIDEO

by Jay Rose
List Price: $39.95 Amazon Price: $31.96 (check BN.com often cheaper Paperback -
352 pages Book & CD edition (December1999) Miller Freeman Books; ISBN:
0879305975 ; http://www.dplay.com/book Make your video project sound better than
it looks. This book delivers solutions to specific problems throughout the
entire process of creating engaging audio for digital video. Written by Jay, a
CLEO and Emmy-winning sound designer, he explains hundreds of real-world
techniques you can use from pre-production through mix. You get how-tos, tips
and time-savers, plus tutorials on key skills such as dialog and music editing.
With an audio CD of sample tracks and diagnostic tools. I found the audio CD
very educational. I find smart things on every page of the book and cannot
imagine a professional soundmixer who has not wanted to write this book himself.
There are many many tips that carry good audio from location to post. There are
many hints for new folks and many clarifications for the experienced pro. Don't
go without it.

AUDIO POST PRODUCTION, also by Jay Rose.
Specializing in sound after the shoot, this new book has long chapters on
editing, equalizing, noise reduction, sound effects, using music effectively,
mixing for various media... as well as on building and wiring the perfect audio
set-up. This is a good introduction for location recordists. Have a look and
sound real smart when questions like; “ can you fix it in the mix” are raised.
430 pages List Price $ 44.95 http://www.dplay.com/book/ buy both books at a 30%
discount:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1578201160/ref%3...




Sound for Film & Television

by Tomlinson Holman. Sound for Film and Television covers the broad field of
sound accompanying pictures, from the fundamentals through recording, editing,
and mixing for films, documentaries, and television shows. The book provides a
solid grounding in all aspects of the sound process. Basic principles are
presented with illustrations on how they affect the day-to-day activities on a
film or television set, in the editing room, and in the mix room. The
accompanying audio CD demonstrates the key concepts discussed in the book. ISBN:
0240802918 Publisher Pretty much the standard college text. Butterworth-Heinemann

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/024080291...

dont buy my books they are too specific.
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 9:44:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

In article <110cuui23s6ej6e@corp.supernews.com>, "Alpha" <logos1@trip.net>
wrote:
....
> You can't hear higher than 20 Khz. Antialiasing is done with oversampling
> and filtering.

Statement A is up for debate, as is any categorical statement about the
limits of human capability. I'm sure neither God nor Darwin calibrated the
human ear in Hertz. Certainly there are plenty of mastering engineers who
claim to hear higher. There are plenty of double-blind tests showing a
difference between 48 kHz sampling and 96 kHz sampling (with good monitors
and trained listeners, of course).

Statement B implies that oversampling is necessary for antialiasing. It
isn't; oversampling is just a great way to eliminate the problems of
analog filters.

--
Correct address is spell out the letter j, AT dplaydahtcom
Clio- and Emmy-winning sound design
Learn audio for video at www.dplay.com
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 3:54:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

"Jay Rose CAS" <SEE-SIGFILE@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:SEE-SIGFILE-0602051844040001@192.168.1.101...
> In article <110cuui23s6ej6e@corp.supernews.com>, "Alpha" <logos1@trip.net>
> wrote:
> ...
>> You can't hear higher than 20 Khz. Antialiasing is done with
>> oversampling
>> and filtering.
>
> Statement A is up for debate, as is any categorical statement about the
> limits of human capability.

It is not at all open for debate. 20 khz is a laboratory based value...in
the real world it is less, in fact.

>I'm sure neither God nor Darwin calibrated the
> human ear in Hertz. Certainly there are plenty of mastering engineers who
> claim to hear higher. There are plenty of double-blind tests showing a
> difference between 48 kHz sampling and 96 kHz sampling (with good monitors
> and trained listeners, of course).

Give me the scientific links to such double-blind tests. Further, show me
real-world data. You can discriminate what you can't cognate.

>
> Statement B implies that oversampling is necessary for antialiasing. It
> isn't; oversampling is just a great way to eliminate the problems of
> analog filters.

There was no such implication.
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 11:12:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 12:19:27 -0800, "Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote:

>You can't hear higher than 20 Khz. Antialiasing is done with oversampling
>and filtering.

My dog can! (just kidding)

>Numerical accuracy in editing and effects is a different matter entirely.
>It depends not a bit on the sampling rate.

The higher the amount of samples, the more accurate you get a
reflection of the original analogue soundwave. If you look at the
sound-signal on a scope, you can see it's shape is very very complex.
Garbage in = garbage out.

cheers

-martin-

--
Can the terror of spam be included in the war on terror?
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 11:12:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

On a sunny day (Mon, 07 Feb 2005 08:12:39 +1100) it happened Martin Heffels
<richardmiller114@zwallet.com> wrote in
<ms1d01t5mhvb9pjl23464fo2qfj08cnn66@4ax.com>:

>>Numerical accuracy in editing and effects is a different matter entirely.
>>It depends not a bit on the sampling rate.
>
>The higher the amount of samples, the more accurate you get a
>reflection of the original analogue soundwave. If you look at the
>sound-signal on a scope, you can see it's shape is very very complex.
Given a preselected frequency range, whatever it is, say for example
20 Hz to 20000 Hz, there is a distinct limit to how many samples per
second you'd want to take.
Niquist's theorem tells us we should sample at least 2 x the maximum
audio frequency we want.
So that would be a little over 40 kHz.
That is how 44.1 kHz for CD came about.
The steepness of the filters used BEFORE the sampling forces you
to sample a bit faster then 2 x.
Very steep filter can cause all sorts of problems.
These days (20 years later or so) digital filters can be made to overcome
many of those problems, oversampling... etc..
If however you sample MUCH faster, as you seem to suggest, you only
add high frequency noise (if you did not change the preemphasis filter).

When doing mathematics on the digitized signal (mixing, volume, etc..), then
it does make a difference what accuray you use (double precision in C, or
many many bits wide resgisters in hardware, say FPGA).
After all multiplying 2 24 bit signals can give an 48 bit result.

>Garbage in = garbage out.
That makes no sense to me in relation to what was discussed.
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 11:12:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

In article <ms1d01t5mhvb9pjl23464fo2qfj08cnn66@4ax.com>, Martin Heffels
<richardmiller114@zwallet.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 12:19:27 -0800, "Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote:
>
> >Numerical accuracy in editing and effects is a different matter entirely.
> >It depends not a bit on the sampling rate.
>
> The higher the amount of samples, the more accurate you get a
> reflection of the original analogue soundwave. If you look at the
> sound-signal on a scope, you can see it's shape is very very complex.

You're talking about two different things. Numerical accuracy refers to
eliminating rounding errors _on_each_sample_ by using a higher bit depth
(and much higher precision calculations). This is necessary because every
processing step - eq, compression, rev, even simple fades - requires doing
multiplication or division on the individual sample values.

Raising the sample rate lets you record and recreate more of the high
frequency components - primarily harmonics - of the original signal.

"Accurate" reproduction requires both a high sample rate and a high bit
depth. "High", in this context, is in the eye of the user (or audiophile,
or marketing department...)

---

Much as it pains me to give any support to anything Alpha wrote, after he
so blindly missed the point about the uselessness of using phase inversion
to tell how transparent a psychoacoustic coding scheme is, and assumed
because I stated that there is no standard algorithm for modeling the
complete mechanical/neuro/psychological listening chain that "I no nothing
about acoustics"...

--
Correct address is spell out the letter j, AT dplaydahtcom
Clio- and Emmy-winning sound design
Learn audio for video at www.dplay.com
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 1:38:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

You might want to know the guys you are calling stupid and blurting out
"nonsense!" to have decades of experience at the top of the field, something
that, with luck, you may live long enough to have a shot at.

Alpha wrote:

> PS
>
> 20 kHz is the bandwidth of hearing. Even CD has headroom for anti-aliasing
> fall-off. So what is the point of 98 ks/sec sampling?

Nobody records to CD. We are making master recordings and higer sample rates
place aliasing products above the passband of human hearing.
>
> The dynamic range of hearing is at best 120-130 dB. So what is the point of
> 24 bit sampling?

The point is to begin with the best recording possible. Do you have an analog
cassette player? Why don't we just record on cassettes?


Put a name in your post or we start killfiling you.

John
February 7, 2005 3:17:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 11:26:05 -0500, in 'rec.video.desktop',
in article <The HDV format...Compressed audio?>,
Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote:

>As I'm going over the specs of the new Sony HDV camcorder, I notice audio is
>recorded as compressed audio, not as linear audio.

Yes, indeed, it's compressed, lossy compressed in fact. MPEG-1 Layer 2
(.mp2) at a 384 kbps data rate. That's a 4:1 compression ratio or to
put it another way, a 75 percent reduction (the compressed data set is
25 percent of the size of the original data set). The original LPCM
would have had a data rate of 1536 kbps.

It's not just the Sony camcorders (the HDR-FX1, HDR-FX1E, HVR-Z1U,
HVR-Z1J, and HVR-Z1E), but the HDV format itself. The audio is always
16-bit (word length), 48 kHz (sampling rate), 2-channel stereo in HDV.
This is the same format which is used on some DVD-Video discs, so if
you're heard any discs like this, then you know, at least potentially,
what sort of sound quality level to expect.

I know that when I first read the HDV specs back in May of last year,
I was half expecting to see use of a lossless (2:1) compression
scheme, but alas, this was not to be.

>I realize that video has been compressed rather massively in lots of formats
>without a huge outcry, but I think audio is more sensitive to compression,
>especially if one compression scheme is followed by others during
>distribution.

Very good point, which is why I think that if one is editing the HDV
directly, doing cuts-only editing, and burning the final output of the
project to DVD-Video disc, it might be best to leave the audio in its
original format all of the way through the process, including burning
it to disc as MPEG-1 Layer II instead of transcoding to Dolby Digital
(yet another lossy format) as so many folks do, or if available disc
space permits, burning it to disc as unencoded LPCM.

Of course, this assumes that you're not editing the audio track in any
way as well, including even simple level changes (normalization, for
example).

>You have an ISDN V/O, a DVD, a broadcast. At the lowest posssible, that's
>three different compression algorithms (not counting more if you store the
>program on a networ or TV station's hard drive. If the station's transmitter
>is not located near master control, you might have a digital STL that uses
>it's own compression.

Transcoding from one lossy format to another lossy format will
certainly degrade the overall sound quality. It's not much different
in this respect than say, transcoding a .wma (Windows Media Audio)
file or a .ra (RealAudio) file to .mp3 (MPEG Layer III). There will be
a loss.

>Are we walking down a dangerous path here?

As a bit of an audiophile in a former life, I was extremely upset to
see the use of lossy compressed audio in the HDV format. To my way of
thinking, that's _not_ progress, but I can see where it would be a
natural choice considering the use of MPEG-2 compression for the video
track.

OTOH, if we consider that the general public, especially younger
people (a demographic of which I am no longer a member), seem for the
most part to find MP3 at 128 kbps to be of acceptable quality, well,
what can I say. Personally, I wouldn't trade a single $50,000 home
audio system for a truckload of iPods even if that meant that I could
only listen to music (and watch television) in my living room.

An alternative, for quality-oriented videographers, is to record audio
to both the HDV tape *and* a separate recorder as well. There are a
number of reasonably priced technologies available today including
portable DAT recorders (HHB, for example), portable CD-R burners
(Marantz Pro), and several forms of flash memory devices, including
the new Roland/Edirol R-1 CompactFlash-based recorder which does
24-bit 44.1 kHz (CD quality) LPCM .wav file recording (125 minutes on
a 2 GB CF card).

>Regards,
>
>Ty Ford

--
Frank, Independent Consultant
New York, NY

[Please remove 'nojunkmail.' from address to reply via e-mail.]

Read Frank's thoughts on HDV at http://www.humanvalues.net/hdv/
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 3:17:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

Frank wrote:
>
> It's not just the Sony camcorders (the HDR-FX1, HDR-FX1E, HVR-Z1U,
> HVR-Z1J, and HVR-Z1E), but the HDV format itself. The audio is always
> 16-bit (word length), 48 kHz (sampling rate), 2-channel stereo in HDV.
> This is the same format which is used on some DVD-Video discs

Close. DVD-V discs use AC-3 encoding for their primary audio channels (though MPEG-2 is/was one of many optional formats which can additionally be provided.) It decodes to 48k but at depths of 16-24 bits.



> As a bit of an audiophile in a former life, I was extremely upset to
> see the use of lossy compressed audio in the HDV format. To my way of
> thinking, that's _not_ progress, but I can see where it would be a
> natural choice considering the use of MPEG-2 compression for the video
> track.
>
> OTOH, if we consider that the general public, especially younger
> people (a demographic of which I am no longer a member), seem for the
> most part to find MP3 at 128 kbps to be of acceptable quality, well,
> what can I say.

I see no problem with HDV's audio spec as a release format--it's an ideal match. As an acquisition format, however, it leaves much to be desired.
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 5:20:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

"wolf" <wolfvidREPLACEWITH_ATcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:MLedndorcf0cEpvfRVn-vg@comcast.com...
>I suggest following reading material: ( it will clear your mind)
>
>
> PRODUCING GREAT SOUND FOR DIGITAL VIDEO
>
> by Jay Rose
> List Price: $39.95 Amazon Price: $31.96 (check BN.com often cheaper
> Paperback - 352 pages Book & CD edition (December1999) Miller Freeman
> Books; ISBN: 0879305975 ; http://www.dplay.com/book Make your video
> project sound better than it looks. This book delivers solutions to
> specific problems throughout the entire process of creating engaging audio
> for digital video. Written by Jay, a CLEO and Emmy-winning sound designer,
> he explains hundreds of real-world techniques you can use from
> pre-production through mix. You get how-tos, tips and time-savers, plus
> tutorials on key skills such as dialog and music editing. With an audio CD
> of sample tracks and diagnostic tools. I found the audio CD very
> educational. I find smart things on every page of the book and cannot
> imagine a professional soundmixer who has not wanted to write this book
> himself. There are many many tips that carry good audio from location to
> post. There are many hints for new folks and many clarifications for the
> experienced pro. Don't go without it.
>
> AUDIO POST PRODUCTION, also by Jay Rose.
> Specializing in sound after the shoot, this new book has long chapters on
> editing, equalizing, noise reduction, sound effects, using music
> effectively, mixing for various media... as well as on building and wiring
> the perfect audio set-up. This is a good introduction for location
> recordists. Have a look and sound real smart when questions like; “ can
> you fix it in the mix” are raised. 430 pages List Price $ 44.95
> http://www.dplay.com/book/ buy both books at a 30% discount:
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1578201160/ref%3...
>


OH, boy..








>
>
> Sound for Film & Television
>
> by Tomlinson Holman. Sound for Film and Television covers the broad field
> of sound accompanying pictures, from the fundamentals through recording,
> editing, and mixing for films, documentaries, and television shows. The
> book provides a solid grounding in all aspects of the sound process. Basic
> principles are presented with illustrations on how they affect the
> day-to-day activities on a film or television set, in the editing room,
> and in the mix room. The accompanying audio CD demonstrates the key
> concepts discussed in the book. ISBN: 0240802918 Publisher Pretty much
> the standard college text. Butterworth-Heinemann
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/024080291...
>
> dont buy my books they are too specific.
>
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 2:03:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 00:54:58 -0800, "Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote:

>It is not at all open for debate. 20 khz is a laboratory based value...in
>the real world it is less, in fact.

In labs people could hear up to 28 kHz. 20kHz is a value based on
calculations given the characteristics of the ear. But indeed, most
people's limit is 16 kHz.

> >I'm sure neither God nor Darwin calibrated the
>> human ear in Hertz. Certainly there are plenty of mastering engineers who
>> claim to hear higher. There are plenty of double-blind tests showing a
>> difference between 48 kHz sampling and 96 kHz sampling (with good monitors
>> and trained listeners, of course).
>
>Give me the scientific links to such double-blind tests. Further, show me
>real-world data. You can discriminate what you can't cognate.

Just like us you can Google around a bit yourself, can't you?

cheers

-martin-

--
Can the terror of spam be included in the war on terror?
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 2:03:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

Didn't Rupert Neves consoles go up to 100,000 Hz? Didn't he do that
because he felt you lost harmonics from the highs at lower frequencies
if you cut off at 20,000 Hz?
Isn't analog 75 db of dynamic range? Isn't DAT (anything 16 bit 48K) 45
db of dynamic range?

Is that why 24 bit 96K is "important"?



Martin Heffels wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 00:54:58 -0800, "Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote:
>
>
>>It is not at all open for debate. 20 khz is a laboratory based value...in
>>the real world it is less, in fact.
>
>
> In labs people could hear up to 28 kHz. 20kHz is a value based on
> calculations given the characteristics of the ear. But indeed, most
> people's limit is 16 kHz.
>
>
>>>I'm sure neither God nor Darwin calibrated the
>>>human ear in Hertz. Certainly there are plenty of mastering engineers who
>>>claim to hear higher. There are plenty of double-blind tests showing a
>>>difference between 48 kHz sampling and 96 kHz sampling (with good monitors
>>>and trained listeners, of course).
>>
>>Give me the scientific links to such double-blind tests. Further, show me
>>real-world data. You can discriminate what you can't cognate.
>
>
> Just like us you can Google around a bit yourself, can't you?
>
> cheers
>
> -martin-
>
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 2:03:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

"Martin Heffels" <richardmiller114@zwallet.com> wrote in message
news:r2me01lod3i5ihtdj0frsmsnoi1hoba3l1@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 00:54:58 -0800, "Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote:
>
>>It is not at all open for debate. 20 khz is a laboratory based value...in
>>the real world it is less, in fact.
>
> In labs people could hear up to 28 kHz. 20kHz is a value based on
> calculations given the characteristics of the ear. But indeed, most
> people's limit is 16 kHz.
>
>> >I'm sure neither God nor Darwin calibrated the
>>> human ear in Hertz. Certainly there are plenty of mastering engineers
>>> who
>>> claim to hear higher. There are plenty of double-blind tests showing a
>>> difference between 48 kHz sampling and 96 kHz sampling (with good
>>> monitors
>>> and trained listeners, of course).
>>
>>Give me the scientific links to such double-blind tests. Further, show me
>>real-world data. You can discriminate what you can't cognate.
>
> Just like us you can Google around a bit yourself, can't you?
>
> cheers
>
> -martin-
>
> --
> Can the terror of spam be included in the war on terror?

I can google, and I find no adequate science that you mentioned. 28 Khz was
found in a single individual. Sure, people live to be 108 etc., but you
would not base a retirement system on that figure!
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 2:03:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

On a sunny day (Mon, 07 Feb 2005 07:37:16 -0800) it happened Raymond Collins
<rcol@intergate.bc.ca> wrote in <420789fa_1@dowco.com>:

>
>
>Didn't Rupert Neves consoles go up to 100,000 Hz? Didn't he do that
>because he felt you lost harmonics from the highs at lower frequencies
maybe he was designing Sonar?

>if you cut off at 20,000 Hz?
>Isn't analog 75 db of dynamic range? Isn't DAT (anything 16 bit 48K) 45
>db of dynamic range?
sample rate has nothing to do with dynamic range.
16 bits ranges from 0 to 65535

So a ratio of say 1 / 65536 between smallest and largest signal.
We talk voltage ratios,
20log(65536) = 96.323 dB
 ecibel+" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&lr=&oi=defmore&q=defi...(dB)

>Is that why 24 bit 96K is "important"?
Dunno, when I was young I could hear 16kHz, 18 even.
I have trouble hearing 15625 these days, in the old days I could
tell you if the TV was in sync without looking.

But if your dog also listens to your music, yes, then it could be a
requirement.
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 2:03:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

Raymond Collins wrote:
> Didn't Rupert Neves consoles go up to 100,000 Hz? Didn't he do that
> because he felt you lost harmonics from the highs at lower frequencies
> if you cut off at 20,000 Hz?

Most all analog audio stages are designed to pass 100-300k, since analog filters (particularly when cascaded) create audible band phase anomalies if you put them much lower.

Digital filters can be designed not to do this, but are much easier to design for such when they operate on higher samplerate audio.
February 8, 2005 6:11:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 10:17:30 -0800, in 'rec.video.desktop',
in article <Re: The HDV format...Compressed audio?>,
Kurt Albershardt <kurt@nv.net> wrote:

>Frank wrote:
>>
>> It's not just the Sony camcorders (the HDR-FX1, HDR-FX1E, HVR-Z1U,
>> HVR-Z1J, and HVR-Z1E), but the HDV format itself. The audio is always
>> 16-bit (word length), 48 kHz (sampling rate), 2-channel stereo in HDV.
>> This is the same format which is used on some DVD-Video discs
>
>Close. DVD-V discs use AC-3 encoding for their primary audio channels
>(though MPEG-2 is/was one of many optional formats which can
>additionally be provided.) It decodes to 48k but at depths of 16-24 bits.

Sorry, Kurt, I wasn't purposely trying to be vague or imprecise, just
trying to point out that MPEG Layer II audio is sometimes used for
encoding the stereo audio tracks on DVD-Video discs and that some
folks might have heard such tracks at one time or another without even
being aware of it.

Virtually all DVD-V discs these days, whether PAL or NTSC and
regardless of Region coding, have Dolby Digital AC-3 tracks, but in
the olden days (six or seven years ago) it wasn't all that uncommon
(at least for me) to encounter discs, especially Region 2 PAL discs,
which had only MPEG audio tracks. I believe that the audio portion of
the PAL DVD Video spec was revised sometime back in late '97 or early
'98 to permit the use of AC-3 tracks only - no MPEG or LPCM. The
original audio portion of the PAL DVD-Video spec mandated use of MPEG
and/or LPCM tracks.

I also seem to recall that a certain provider of consumer-level DVD
authoring software (Ulead Systems, if memory serves) once came out
with an authoring package which produced discs which had only MPEG
audio tracks. I believe that this situation was rectified in a
subsequent release of their software although I suppose that a number
of people purchased the original version without being cognizant of
this limitation.

MPEG audio (at 16/44.1 and usually at a data rate of 224 kbps) is also
used on Green Book and White Book CDi and VCD 1.1 and 2.0 discs.

I'm in New York (Region 1 NTSC) but deal with discs from all over the
world. I'm fortunate in having an all-region (region-free)
multi-standard (PAL/NTSC) DVD player (a Marantz Pro PMD930) and a
multi-standard (PAL/NTSC) television monitor (a Sony PVM-14M4U). With
this combination I've been able to play any DVD-Video disc that I've
ever encountered, regardless of source.

>I see no problem with HDV's audio spec as a release format--it's an
>ideal match. As an acquisition format, however, it leaves much to be
>desired.

I almost screamed when I first looked at the HDV spec and saw MPEG-2
Video and MPEG-1 Layer II audio. I have DTV cable television service
and therefore see MPEG-2 video used as a distribution format all the
time. I strongly believe that MPEG-2 video is a distribution format
and was never intended to be used as an acquisition format, especially
in situations where it's going to be edited.

--
Frank, Independent Consultant
New York, NY

[Please remove 'nojunkmail.' from address to reply via e-mail.]

Read Frank's thoughts on HDV at http://www.humanvalues.net/hdv/
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 11:06:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 07:37:16 -0800, Raymond Collins
<rcol@intergate.bc.ca> wrote:

>Isn't analog 75 db of dynamic range? Isn't DAT (anything 16 bit 48K) 45
>db of dynamic range?

Every bit in digital gives 6dB dynamic range, which makes 16 bit to 96
dB.

>Is that why 24 bit 96K is "important"?

Probably :)  My ears got damaged which cost me a lot of the high
frequency range, so I won't hear the difference :( 

cheers

-martin-

--
Can the terror of spam be included in the war on terror?
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 12:36:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 13:17:30 -0500, Kurt Albershardt wrote
(in article <36pploF51eamcU1@individual.net>):

> Frank wrote:
>>
>> It's not just the Sony camcorders (the HDR-FX1, HDR-FX1E, HVR-Z1U,
>> HVR-Z1J, and HVR-Z1E), but the HDV format itself. The audio is always
>> 16-bit (word length), 48 kHz (sampling rate), 2-channel stereo in HDV.
>> This is the same format which is used on some DVD-Video discs
>
> Close. DVD-V discs use AC-3 encoding for their primary audio channels
> (though MPEG-2 is/was one of many optional formats which can additionally be
> provided.) It decodes to 48k but at depths of 16-24 bits.

NOT close. The Sony HDV camera is also able to record in DV mode and in THAT
mode it's 16-bit 48kHz. In HDV it's data reduced.


>> As a bit of an audiophile in a former life, I was extremely upset to
>> see the use of lossy compressed audio in the HDV format. To my way of
>> thinking, that's _not_ progress, but I can see where it would be a
>> natural choice considering the use of MPEG-2 compression for the video
>> track.
>>
>> OTOH, if we consider that the general public, especially younger
>> people (a demographic of which I am no longer a member), seem for the
>> most part to find MP3 at 128 kbps to be of acceptable quality, well,
>> what can I say.
>
> I see no problem with HDV's audio spec as a release format--it's an ideal
> match. As an acquisition format, however, it leaves much to be desired.

That would be me agreeing.

Regards,

Ty



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 3:35:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

In a fit of passion to prove he's right even when the facts prove
otherwise, Alpha wrote:
> I can google, and I find no adequate science that you mentioned. 28 Khz was
> found in a single individual. Sure, people live to be 108 etc., but you
> would not base a retirement system on that figure!

I would if I were that person.

John Blankenship,
Indianapolis
(email: my initials at mw daht net)
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 12:59:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

> Given the traditional level of importance that camcorder makers
> have placed on audio quality, is a decline even possible? Maybe
> this indicates that, despite the VX2000 furor, Sony (and others
> probably) are still as clueless as ever about audio in video.
>
>

This is why all serious recording work that I do does not rely on the camera
audio for anything but sync purposes. I use the MOTU 896 and eight large
diaphragm condenser mics to capture both a 5.1 surround mix and a separate
stereo mix from alternate locations on-stage. Camera audio is horrific and
only useful in emergency ENG situations, IMHO.


--
Best Regards,

Mark A. Weiss, P.E.
www.mwcomms.com
-
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 3:00:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.arts.movies.production.sound (More info?)

I'd like to hear more on this. I was under the impression that if a DV
camera was provided with an excellent sound source, as opposed to the
built-in mics, that the sound on most camcorders is actually quite good,
at least at 16 bit.

I can't believe I'm going to have to start hauling a Nagra around with
me....

Mark & Mary Ann Weiss wrote:
>>Given the traditional level of importance that camcorder makers

> stereo mix from alternate locations on-stage. Camera audio is horrific and
> only useful in emergency ENG situations, IMHO.
>
>
> --
> Best Regards,
>
> Mark A. Weiss, P.E.
> www.mwcomms.com
> -
>
>
>
!