Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

mpeg2 hardisk video cameras-questions

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 3:36:20 AM

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

Hi All

I was wondering whether the new video cameras with mpeg2 recording straight
to their own mini hardisk (4 gb for one hour best quality) ..

1) really provide "DVD quality"?
2) Is it the same or better quality as mini DV tape?
3) Is mpeg2 difficult to edit on your pc editing prog ( Adobe premiere pro)?
4)other pros and cons?

Thanks

Sam
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 3:36:21 AM

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

MPEG is biased toward compression, not quality. While there are perfectly
functional editors that work with it, I've had difficulty with Premiere -
other people may have other input on this.

Ideally, I avoid MPEG until outputting to DVD.

What are you DOING? should drive all your technology decisions.
Personally, I'm trying to make a living at this. I'd stick with mainstream
unless this is a hobby and you want "a toy." Go with a good miniDV or DVCAM
camera.

The Sony PD-150 is quite capable. Google it for reviews. I understand a
number of indie films are being shot with it.

C.


"Sam Lewis" <Sam@delete.dsst.privasend.com> wrote in message
news:8gsWd.185718$K7.152614@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Hi All
>
> I was wondering whether the new video cameras with mpeg2 recording
> straight
> to their own mini hardisk (4 gb for one hour best quality) ..
>
> 1) really provide "DVD quality"?
> 2) Is it the same or better quality as mini DV tape?
> 3) Is mpeg2 difficult to edit on your pc editing prog ( Adobe premiere
> pro)?
> 4)other pros and cons?
>
> Thanks
>
> Sam
>
>
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 5:21:28 AM

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

"C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote in message
news:rLGdnfzaW9d_yLffRVn-sA@rogers.com...
> MPEG is biased toward compression, not quality. While there are perfectly
> functional editors that work with it, I've had difficulty with Premiere -
> other people may have other input on this.
>
> Ideally, I avoid MPEG until outputting to DVD.

Could you transcode the mpeg2 to a friendlier format to edit and then export
to DVD?....I'm just thinking that IF the final distributed output is to a
DVD disc anyway, then perhaps the higher quality of a DV-avi file to begin
with is ultimately redundant?? I guess, apart from anything else, does a DVD
made from an exported DV-avi file look the same as a DVD made from an mpeg2
source/transcoded to xyz to edit/exported to DVD?


> What are you DOING? should drive all your technology decisions.
> Personally, I'm trying to make a living at this. I'd stick with mainstream
> unless this is a hobby and you want "a toy." Go with a good miniDV or
> DVCAM camera.

I am a wanabe serious hobbyist (newbie).I am only looking to create at
maximum "DVD quality" productions. If sticking with miniDV until final
export to DVD yields better results then I would go that way



> The Sony PD-150 is quite capable. Google it for reviews. I understand a
> number of indie films are being shot with it.


thanks will check it out

sam
Related resources
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 5:21:29 AM

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

Sam Lewis wrote:
> "C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote in message
> news:rLGdnfzaW9d_yLffRVn-sA@rogers.com...
>> MPEG is biased toward compression, not quality. While there are
>> perfectly functional editors that work with it, I've had difficulty
>> with Premiere - other people may have other input on this.
>>
>> Ideally, I avoid MPEG until outputting to DVD.
>
> Could you transcode the mpeg2 to a friendlier format to edit and then
> export to DVD?....


At the risk of getting technical, DV-AVI (mini-dv tape) is compressed at 5:1
in 4:1:1 colour space. MPEG-2 further compresses this to 4:2:0.
http://www.adamwilt.com/pix-sampling.html and
http://www.adamwilt.com/pix-codecs.html have some good pictures showing you
what happens.


> I'm just thinking that IF the final distributed
> output is to a DVD disc anyway, then perhaps the higher quality of a
> DV-avi file to begin with is ultimately redundant??


Nope. The old line about garbage in = garbage out holds here as well.
Because mini-dv is higher quality than mpeg, your end product will look
better.


> I guess, apart
> from anything else, does a DVD made from an exported DV-avi file look
> the same as a DVD made from an mpeg2 source/transcoded to xyz to
> edit/exported to DVD?


For the reasons I stated above, it'll look better.


>> What are you DOING? should drive all your technology decisions.
>> Personally, I'm trying to make a living at this. I'd stick with
>> mainstream unless this is a hobby and you want "a toy." Go with a
>> good miniDV or DVCAM camera.
>
> I am a wanabe serious hobbyist (newbie).I am only looking to create at
> maximum "DVD quality" productions. If sticking with miniDV until final
> export to DVD yields better results then I would go that way


It will. Where you'll really see it is if/when you try to do any effects,
even a simple dissolve.
BTW, if you're looking for a decent low-end video editing/DVD authoring
package, I highly recommend Vegas Movie Studio+DVD. More info & a trial
download are at http://tinyurl.com/539k6 It's an all-in-one editing & DVD
authoring package ($100 direct from Sony). I'm sure you can find it for
less at one of your local computer/electronics stores. The bonus here is
that you can upgrade to Vegas+DVDA if you ever outgrow Movie Studio.

Mike


>> The Sony PD-150 is quite capable. Google it for reviews. I
>> understand a number of indie films are being shot with it.
>
>
> thanks will check it out
>
> sam
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 10:24:03 AM

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

"Sam Lewis" wrote ...
> I was wondering whether the new video cameras with mpeg2
> recording straight to their own mini hardisk (4 gb for one hour
> best quality) ..
>
> 1) really provide "DVD quality"?

No. It is higher compression than commercial DVDs.
Furthermore, the source (the camera part) is significantly lower
quality than anything shot for commercial release.

> 2) Is it the same or better quality as mini DV tape?

No. It is worse by any standard of measurement.

> 3) Is mpeg2 difficult to edit on your pc editing prog
> ( Adobe premiere pro)?

It is significantly more difficult. And it is significantly more
degrading to the video.

> 4)other pros and cons?

Only pro I can think of is ability to pop the disc into a
DVD player instantly. I have seen cases where this is the
primary requirement. In those cases, a mini-DVD camcorder
makes sense. I certainly would not use one for anyting where
I was expecting to do ANY post-production (editing, etc.)
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 10:29:07 AM

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

"Mike Kujbida" <kujfam-misleadingspam@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:%5wWd.74966$Vf6.1992280@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> Sam Lewis wrote:
[..]
>> I'm just thinking that IF the final distributed
>> output is to a DVD disc anyway, then perhaps the higher quality of a
>> DV-avi file to begin with is ultimately redundant??
>
>
> Nope. The old line about garbage in = garbage out holds here as well.
> Because mini-dv is higher quality than mpeg, your end product will look
> better.

Yep, I should of guessed!As an old audiophile (music/audio phile) the same
principle applies.The 'Hollywood' look no doubt stems from the high quality
initial production and skill of the cinematographer so that even when it is
'watered down' to DVD it still looks good.


Sam
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 10:29:08 AM

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

"Sam Lewis" wrote ...
> Yep, I should of guessed!As an old audiophile (music/audiophile)
> the same principle applies.The 'Hollywood' look no doubt stems
> from the high quality initial production and skill of the cinema-
> tographer so that even when it is 'watered down' to DVD it still
> looks good.

Yes. As someone who came to video from the audio world, I
can confirm that the same principles apply. Start out with an
original as good as you can get so that by the time it gets to the
distribution step, you still have something of value.
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 11:10:59 AM

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

"Sam Lewis" <Sam@delete.dsst.privasend.com> wrote in message
news:IOtWd.185789$K7.18356@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

<snip>

> I am a wanabe serious hobbyist (newbie).I am only looking to create at
> maximum "DVD quality" productions. If sticking with miniDV until final
> export to DVD yields better results then I would go that way

I'm a serious video hobbyist. If you're truly concerned with video quality,
the only way to go is a prosumer-model 3-ccd miniDV camcorder.

>
>
>
>> The Sony PD-150 is quite capable. Google it for reviews. I understand a
>> number of indie films are being shot with it.
>
>
> thanks will check it out

The PD-150 is the "pro" version of the VX2000. There are three primary
differences between the two -- the PD-150 can use mini-DVcam or miniDV tape,
whereas the VX2000 uses only miniDV. Mini-DVcam and miniDV both are encoded
as DV-25, so the video quality will be identical. MiniDVcam is slightly
more robust and less prone to dropout, though dropout shouldn't be a problem
in miniDV unless you reuse tapes too often. The PD-150 has a
high-resolution black-and-white viewfinder, whereas the VX2000's viewfinder
is color -- the PD-150's viewfinder makes it easier to get accurate manual
focus. Finally, the PD-150 has XLR microphone inputs with adjustable levels
for each channel and comes with a monophonic microhone. The VX2000 uses a
mini-plug mike input, has a stereo on-camera mike and adjusts both stereo
channels in tandem.

The movie Open Water was partially shot with an unmodified stock VX2000.

Incidently, the VX2000 has been superceded by the VX2100. I'm also fairly
certain that the PD-150 has been replaced with the PD-170.

Neither offer signficant advantages over their predecessors -- if you can
find a VX2000 or a PD-150 used, you'll be getting the msot
bang-for-the-buck.

BTW, I own a VX2000, so I'm somewhat partial to it.

Incidently, Sony has just released a very good HD camcorder (the model
number escapes me at the moment). It records in mpeg4 to miniDV tape, has a
native 16:9 mode, and produces fairly spectacular video considering its
cost. Sony will shortly be releasing a plug-in for Premiere that will allow
editing of the native video produced by this machine. I suspect standard
miniDV will be around for quite some time, and Sony's next iteration of its
HD camcorder will probably be an improvement. However, if you're very, very
serious about producing the highest quality video, you might want to check
out Sony's new HD machine.


>
> sam
>
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 11:11:00 AM

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

"PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
news:nWyWd.12489$OU1.11237@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Sam Lewis" <Sam@delete.dsst.privasend.com> wrote in message
> news:IOtWd.185789$K7.18356@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> <snip>
>
>> I am a wanabe serious hobbyist (newbie).I am only looking to create at
>> maximum "DVD quality" productions. If sticking with miniDV until final
>> export to DVD yields better results then I would go that way
>
> I'm a serious video hobbyist. If you're truly concerned with video
> quality, the only way to go is a prosumer-model 3-ccd miniDV camcorder.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> The Sony PD-150 is quite capable. Google it for reviews. I understand a
>>> number of indie films are being shot with it.
>>
>>
>> thanks will check it out
>
> The PD-150 is the "pro" version of the VX2000. There are three primary
> differences between the two -- the PD-150 can use mini-DVcam or miniDV
> tape, whereas the VX2000 uses only miniDV. Mini-DVcam and miniDV both are
> encoded as DV-25, so the video quality will be identical. MiniDVcam is
> slightly more robust and less prone to dropout, though dropout shouldn't
> be a problem in miniDV unless you reuse tapes too often. The PD-150 has a
> high-resolution black-and-white viewfinder, whereas the VX2000's
> viewfinder is color -- the PD-150's viewfinder makes it easier to get
> accurate manual focus. Finally, the PD-150 has XLR microphone inputs with
> adjustable levels for each channel and comes with a monophonic microhone.
> The VX2000 uses a mini-plug mike input, has a stereo on-camera mike and
> adjusts both stereo channels in tandem.
>
> The movie Open Water was partially shot with an unmodified stock VX2000.
>
> Incidently, the VX2000 has been superceded by the VX2100. I'm also fairly
> certain that the PD-150 has been replaced with the PD-170.
>
> Neither offer signficant advantages over their predecessors -- if you can
> find a VX2000 or a PD-150 used, you'll be getting the msot
> bang-for-the-buck.
>
> BTW, I own a VX2000, so I'm somewhat partial to it.
>
> Incidently, Sony has just released a very good HD camcorder (the model
> number escapes me at the moment). It records in mpeg4 to miniDV tape, has
> a native 16:9 mode, and produces fairly spectacular video considering its
> cost. Sony will shortly be releasing a plug-in for Premiere that will
> allow editing of the native video produced by this machine. I suspect
> standard miniDV will be around for quite some time, and Sony's next
> iteration of its HD camcorder will probably be an improvement. However,
> if you're very, very serious about producing the highest quality video,
> you might want to check out Sony's new HD machine.
>

Since you are working with unedited video, that you will
be applying image altering effects to, it is in your interest to
suffer through the long wait when you later encode to DVD
compliant MPEG. If you want to have available the most
processing options, then you should remain in the least
compressed format, as long as possible, and save a copy
at each processing stage.

So, in this case not in MPEG2 or most certainly not
MPEG4.

Luck;
Ken
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 11:16:00 AM

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

"Sam Lewis" <Sam@delete.dsst.privasend.com> wrote in message
news:7jyWd.186059$K7.18478@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Mike Kujbida" <kujfam-misleadingspam@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:%5wWd.74966$Vf6.1992280@news20.bellglobal.com...
>>
>> Sam Lewis wrote:
> [..]
>>> I'm just thinking that IF the final distributed
>>> output is to a DVD disc anyway, then perhaps the higher quality of a
>>> DV-avi file to begin with is ultimately redundant??
>>
>>
>> Nope. The old line about garbage in = garbage out holds here as well.
>> Because mini-dv is higher quality than mpeg, your end product will look
>> better.
>
> Yep, I should of guessed!As an old audiophile (music/audio phile) the same
> principle applies.The 'Hollywood' look no doubt stems from the high
> quality initial production and skill of the cinematographer so that even
> when it is 'watered down' to DVD it still looks good.

Most of the indie films that are shot on miniDV are given very heavy
post-processing with some fairly sophisticated software to achieve the film
look. 28 Days Later (I think that's what it was called -- it's late and I'm
having trouble remembering the title) was shot with Canon XL2s, but these
were fitted out with special lenses, used matte boxes, etc., i.e. it wasn't
a question of taking a stock Canon and going out and making a movie. In my
opinion, though the finished film looked good, it was clear that it was shot
with digital equipment. Open Water, which I mentioned in another post, used
a stock VX2000 and, I think, an FX-1 for the underwater segments. I hadn't
heard about it before I saw it, and I was shocked to learn afterwards that
it had been shot on DV -- it looked filmic. I'd love to know what
post-processing was done to achieve such a beautiful look. Incidently,
technical wizardry aside, it's a good film artistically, too.


>
>
> Sam
>
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 12:16:06 AM

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

"PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
news:4%yWd.12490$OU1.9226@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...

> Most of the indie films that are shot on miniDV are given very heavy
> post-processing with some fairly sophisticated software to achieve the
> film look. 28 Days Later (I think that's what it was called -- it's late
> and I'm having trouble remembering the title) was shot with Canon XL2s,
> but these were fitted out with special lenses, used matte boxes, etc.,
> i.e. it wasn't a question of taking a stock Canon and going out and making
> a movie. In my opinion, though the finished film looked good, it was
> clear that it was shot with digital equipment. Open Water, which I
> mentioned in another post, used a stock VX2000 and, I think, an FX-1 for
> the underwater segments. I hadn't heard about it before I saw it, and I
> was shocked to learn afterwards that it had been shot on DV -- it looked
> filmic. I'd love to know what post-processing was done to achieve such a
> beautiful look. Incidently, technical wizardry aside, it's a good film
> artistically, too.


thanks for info and will also check out the film.

I came across this in my travels ( apologies if it was you that gave me the
link..lol) re the film look, which may be of interest

http://www.adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-etc.html#filmlook

Sam
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 12:22:15 AM

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

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
news:112m8cerrt0pn38@corp.supernews.com...
> "Sam Lewis" wrote ...
>> Yep, I should of guessed!As an old audiophile (music/audiophile) the same
>> principle applies.The 'Hollywood' look no doubt stems from the high
>> quality initial production and skill of the cinema-
>> tographer so that even when it is 'watered down' to DVD it still looks
>> good.
>
> Yes. As someone who came to video from the audio world, I
> can confirm that the same principles apply. Start out with an
> original as good as you can get so that by the time it gets to the
> distribution step, you still have something of value.


yes and a pity that the natural death of the DVD-A vs. SACD has crippled the
further development of even red book 16/44.1 CD music!But then again most
aficionados still listen to vinyl...but that's way off topic ! lol

Sam
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 9:36:19 AM

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

Richard,Thanks for the answers

Sam

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
news:112m84lcmk9ru6a@corp.supernews.com...
> "Sam Lewis" wrote ...
>> I was wondering whether the new video cameras with mpeg2 recording
>> straight to their own mini hardisk (4 gb for one hour best quality) ..
>>
>> 1) really provide "DVD quality"?
>
> No. It is higher compression than commercial DVDs.
> Furthermore, the source (the camera part) is significantly lower
> quality than anything shot for commercial release.
>
>> 2) Is it the same or better quality as mini DV tape?
>
> No. It is worse by any standard of measurement.
>
>> 3) Is mpeg2 difficult to edit on your pc editing prog
>> ( Adobe premiere pro)?
>
> It is significantly more difficult. And it is significantly more
> degrading to the video.
>
>> 4)other pros and cons?
>
> Only pro I can think of is ability to pop the disc into a DVD player
> instantly. I have seen cases where this is the
> primary requirement. In those cases, a mini-DVD camcorder
> makes sense. I certainly would not use one for anyting where
> I was expecting to do ANY post-production (editing, etc.)
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 12:27:09 PM

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

"Sam Lewis" <Sam@delete.dsst.privasend.com> wrote in message
news:qqKWd.186775$K7.31108@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
> news:4%yWd.12490$OU1.9226@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
> > Most of the indie films that are shot on miniDV are given very heavy
> > post-processing with some fairly sophisticated software to achieve the
> > film look. 28 Days Later (I think that's what it was called -- it's
late
> > and I'm having trouble remembering the title) was shot with Canon XL2s,
> > but these were fitted out with special lenses, used matte boxes, etc.,
> > i.e. it wasn't a question of taking a stock Canon and going out and
making
> > a movie. In my opinion, though the finished film looked good, it was
> > clear that it was shot with digital equipment. Open Water, which I
> > mentioned in another post, used a stock VX2000 and, I think, an FX-1 for
> > the underwater segments. I hadn't heard about it before I saw it, and I
> > was shocked to learn afterwards that it had been shot on DV -- it looked
> > filmic. I'd love to know what post-processing was done to achieve such
a
> > beautiful look. Incidently, technical wizardry aside, it's a good film
> > artistically, too.
>
>
> thanks for info and will also check out the film.
>
> I came across this in my travels ( apologies if it was you that gave me
the
> link..lol) re the film look, which may be of interest
>
> http://www.adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-etc.html#filmlook
>
> Sam

MagicBullet, which is mentioned in the article, is now available for PC.
I've tried it and it does a fairly credible job of mimicing film by
introducing grain and altering contrast. It stlls looks "videoy" though, in
my opinion, but it's fun to work with.


>
>
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 1:35:21 PM

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

"Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:QIednUDUKroIfrffRVn-og@giganews.com...
>
> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
> news:nWyWd.12489$OU1.11237@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "Sam Lewis" <Sam@delete.dsst.privasend.com> wrote in message
> > news:IOtWd.185789$K7.18356@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> I am a wanabe serious hobbyist (newbie).I am only looking to create at
> >> maximum "DVD quality" productions. If sticking with miniDV until final
> >> export to DVD yields better results then I would go that way
> >
> > I'm a serious video hobbyist. If you're truly concerned with video
> > quality, the only way to go is a prosumer-model 3-ccd miniDV camcorder.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> The Sony PD-150 is quite capable. Google it for reviews. I understand
a
> >>> number of indie films are being shot with it.
> >>
> >>
> >> thanks will check it out
> >
> > The PD-150 is the "pro" version of the VX2000. There are three primary
> > differences between the two -- the PD-150 can use mini-DVcam or miniDV
> > tape, whereas the VX2000 uses only miniDV. Mini-DVcam and miniDV both
are
> > encoded as DV-25, so the video quality will be identical. MiniDVcam is
> > slightly more robust and less prone to dropout, though dropout shouldn't
> > be a problem in miniDV unless you reuse tapes too often. The PD-150 has
a
> > high-resolution black-and-white viewfinder, whereas the VX2000's
> > viewfinder is color -- the PD-150's viewfinder makes it easier to get
> > accurate manual focus. Finally, the PD-150 has XLR microphone inputs
with
> > adjustable levels for each channel and comes with a monophonic
microhone.
> > The VX2000 uses a mini-plug mike input, has a stereo on-camera mike and
> > adjusts both stereo channels in tandem.
> >
> > The movie Open Water was partially shot with an unmodified stock VX2000.
> >
> > Incidently, the VX2000 has been superceded by the VX2100. I'm also
fairly
> > certain that the PD-150 has been replaced with the PD-170.
> >
> > Neither offer signficant advantages over their predecessors -- if you
can
> > find a VX2000 or a PD-150 used, you'll be getting the msot
> > bang-for-the-buck.
> >
> > BTW, I own a VX2000, so I'm somewhat partial to it.
> >
> > Incidently, Sony has just released a very good HD camcorder (the model
> > number escapes me at the moment). It records in mpeg4 to miniDV tape,
has
> > a native 16:9 mode, and produces fairly spectacular video considering
its
> > cost. Sony will shortly be releasing a plug-in for Premiere that will
> > allow editing of the native video produced by this machine. I suspect
> > standard miniDV will be around for quite some time, and Sony's next
> > iteration of its HD camcorder will probably be an improvement. However,
> > if you're very, very serious about producing the highest quality video,
> > you might want to check out Sony's new HD machine.
> >
>
> Since you are working with unedited video, that you will
> be applying image altering effects to, it is in your interest to
> suffer through the long wait when you later encode to DVD
> compliant MPEG. If you want to have available the most
> processing options, then you should remain in the least
> compressed format, as long as possible, and save a copy
> at each processing stage.
>
> So, in this case not in MPEG2 or most certainly not
> MPEG4.

There are only two prosumer HD camcorders on the market, the Sony FX-1 and
the JVC JY-HD10U. Both use miniDV tape and both encode video as mpeg2.
Both retail for around $3000. They are the only game in town for HD under
high five figures.

Adobe Premiere Pro (a prosumer editing package) has plug-ins that support
both of these cameras. The resolution gain with HD, as compared with SD, as
well as the sophisticated editing features of Premiere Pro, ensure
professional-quality video.

It is absolutely ludicrous to say "avoid mpeg2" in this context. Prosumer
uncompressed HD camcorders simply don't exist, so mpeg2 couldn't be avoided
even if there was any reason to avoid it in this application which, of
course, there is not. This is HD, not SD, encoded by a pro-grade hardware
encoder at the camera, not a toy capture card designed for PC hobbyists. It
is intended to be edited in a professional-grade editing package, not
VideoReDo.






>
> Luck;
> Ken
>
>
>
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 5:49:02 PM

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

"PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
news:393l7bF5u5bvjU1@individual.net...
>
> "Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:QIednUDUKroIfrffRVn-og@giganews.com...
>>
>> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
>> news:nWyWd.12489$OU1.11237@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>> >
>> > "Sam Lewis" <Sam@delete.dsst.privasend.com> wrote in message
>> > news:IOtWd.185789$K7.18356@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> >> I am a wanabe serious hobbyist (newbie).I am only looking to create at
>> >> maximum "DVD quality" productions. If sticking with miniDV until final
>> >> export to DVD yields better results then I would go that way
>> >
>> > I'm a serious video hobbyist. If you're truly concerned with video
>> > quality, the only way to go is a prosumer-model 3-ccd miniDV camcorder.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> The Sony PD-150 is quite capable. Google it for reviews. I understand
> a
>> >>> number of indie films are being shot with it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> thanks will check it out
>> >
>> > The PD-150 is the "pro" version of the VX2000. There are three primary
>> > differences between the two -- the PD-150 can use mini-DVcam or miniDV
>> > tape, whereas the VX2000 uses only miniDV. Mini-DVcam and miniDV both
> are
>> > encoded as DV-25, so the video quality will be identical. MiniDVcam is
>> > slightly more robust and less prone to dropout, though dropout
>> > shouldn't
>> > be a problem in miniDV unless you reuse tapes too often. The PD-150
>> > has
> a
>> > high-resolution black-and-white viewfinder, whereas the VX2000's
>> > viewfinder is color -- the PD-150's viewfinder makes it easier to get
>> > accurate manual focus. Finally, the PD-150 has XLR microphone inputs
> with
>> > adjustable levels for each channel and comes with a monophonic
> microhone.
>> > The VX2000 uses a mini-plug mike input, has a stereo on-camera mike and
>> > adjusts both stereo channels in tandem.
>> >
>> > The movie Open Water was partially shot with an unmodified stock
>> > VX2000.
>> >
>> > Incidently, the VX2000 has been superceded by the VX2100. I'm also
> fairly
>> > certain that the PD-150 has been replaced with the PD-170.
>> >
>> > Neither offer signficant advantages over their predecessors -- if you
> can
>> > find a VX2000 or a PD-150 used, you'll be getting the msot
>> > bang-for-the-buck.
>> >
>> > BTW, I own a VX2000, so I'm somewhat partial to it.
>> >
>> > Incidently, Sony has just released a very good HD camcorder (the model
>> > number escapes me at the moment). It records in mpeg4 to miniDV tape,
> has
>> > a native 16:9 mode, and produces fairly spectacular video considering
> its
>> > cost. Sony will shortly be releasing a plug-in for Premiere that will
>> > allow editing of the native video produced by this machine. I suspect
>> > standard miniDV will be around for quite some time, and Sony's next
>> > iteration of its HD camcorder will probably be an improvement.
>> > However,
>> > if you're very, very serious about producing the highest quality video,
>> > you might want to check out Sony's new HD machine.
>> >
>>
>> Since you are working with unedited video, that you will
>> be applying image altering effects to, it is in your interest to
>> suffer through the long wait when you later encode to DVD
>> compliant MPEG. If you want to have available the most
>> processing options, then you should remain in the least
>> compressed format, as long as possible, and save a copy
>> at each processing stage.
>>
>> So, in this case not in MPEG2 or most certainly not
>> MPEG4.
>
> There are only two prosumer HD camcorders on the market, the Sony FX-1 and
> the JVC JY-HD10U. Both use miniDV tape and both encode video as mpeg2.
> Both retail for around $3000. They are the only game in town for HD under
> high five figures.
>
> Adobe Premiere Pro (a prosumer editing package) has plug-ins that support
> both of these cameras. The resolution gain with HD, as compared with SD,
> as
> well as the sophisticated editing features of Premiere Pro, ensure
> professional-quality video.
>
> It is absolutely ludicrous to say "avoid mpeg2" in this context. Prosumer
> uncompressed HD camcorders simply don't exist, so mpeg2 couldn't be
> avoided
> even if there was any reason to avoid it in this application which, of
> course, there is not. This is HD, not SD, encoded by a pro-grade hardware
> encoder at the camera, not a toy capture card designed for PC hobbyists.
> It
> is intended to be edited in a professional-grade editing package, not
> VideoReDo.
>

My, how your tune has changed. Perhaps not, it's still that the
Pro way is the only way, even when it's now the way you have
been arguing against all this time. What ever became of your
"you can't edit MPEG" refrain? Is that "Horrendous
degradation" no longer to be encountered, because it's Adobe
doing it now?

What about your claim that hardware single pass real time
encoding can never be any good? Tell me what are the factors
that have changed so that now it's acceptable?

I don't remember the OP mentioning taking the leap to HD. I
had the impression that he wasn't going to be able to write the
expense of HD hardware and software off his taxes, like some
can. In other posts I've mentioned the possibility that we may
be headed towards editing MPEG with a selective encoding
approach. For those of us without Tax write offs, or very deep
pockets, HD MPEG Editing is likely to not be for some time yet.

As to the toy nature of my hardware encoder chip, it's the same
one that TiVo used to create their Series 2 units. The A/D chip
in front of the encoder is the much praised Philips SAA7114H.
The web sites for both Philips and Broadcom have detailed
descriptions of these chips. The encoder is the BCM7040 or
"Kfir-II". I don't actually expect that you will check these ICs
out, and fully expect that you will turn your nose up at a mere
consumer product like TiVo, but it is sometimes good to set
the record straight for others that may be reading this thread.

Luck;
Ken
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 5:49:03 PM

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

"Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:cKidnUyH4JerI7HfRVn-hA@giganews.com...
>
> "PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
> news:393l7bF5u5bvjU1@individual.net...
> >
> > "Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > news:QIednUDUKroIfrffRVn-og@giganews.com...
> >>
> >> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
> >> news:nWyWd.12489$OU1.11237@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> >> >
> >> > "Sam Lewis" <Sam@delete.dsst.privasend.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:IOtWd.185789$K7.18356@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >> >
> >> > <snip>
> >> >
> >> >> I am a wanabe serious hobbyist (newbie).I am only looking to create
at
> >> >> maximum "DVD quality" productions. If sticking with miniDV until
final
> >> >> export to DVD yields better results then I would go that way
> >> >
> >> > I'm a serious video hobbyist. If you're truly concerned with video
> >> > quality, the only way to go is a prosumer-model 3-ccd miniDV
camcorder.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>> The Sony PD-150 is quite capable. Google it for reviews. I
understand
> > a
> >> >>> number of indie films are being shot with it.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> thanks will check it out
> >> >
> >> > The PD-150 is the "pro" version of the VX2000. There are three
primary
> >> > differences between the two -- the PD-150 can use mini-DVcam or
miniDV
> >> > tape, whereas the VX2000 uses only miniDV. Mini-DVcam and miniDV
both
> > are
> >> > encoded as DV-25, so the video quality will be identical. MiniDVcam
is
> >> > slightly more robust and less prone to dropout, though dropout
> >> > shouldn't
> >> > be a problem in miniDV unless you reuse tapes too often. The PD-150
> >> > has
> > a
> >> > high-resolution black-and-white viewfinder, whereas the VX2000's
> >> > viewfinder is color -- the PD-150's viewfinder makes it easier to get
> >> > accurate manual focus. Finally, the PD-150 has XLR microphone inputs
> > with
> >> > adjustable levels for each channel and comes with a monophonic
> > microhone.
> >> > The VX2000 uses a mini-plug mike input, has a stereo on-camera mike
and
> >> > adjusts both stereo channels in tandem.
> >> >
> >> > The movie Open Water was partially shot with an unmodified stock
> >> > VX2000.
> >> >
> >> > Incidently, the VX2000 has been superceded by the VX2100. I'm also
> > fairly
> >> > certain that the PD-150 has been replaced with the PD-170.
> >> >
> >> > Neither offer signficant advantages over their predecessors -- if you
> > can
> >> > find a VX2000 or a PD-150 used, you'll be getting the msot
> >> > bang-for-the-buck.
> >> >
> >> > BTW, I own a VX2000, so I'm somewhat partial to it.
> >> >
> >> > Incidently, Sony has just released a very good HD camcorder (the
model
> >> > number escapes me at the moment). It records in mpeg4 to miniDV
tape,
> > has
> >> > a native 16:9 mode, and produces fairly spectacular video considering
> > its
> >> > cost. Sony will shortly be releasing a plug-in for Premiere that
will
> >> > allow editing of the native video produced by this machine. I
suspect
> >> > standard miniDV will be around for quite some time, and Sony's next
> >> > iteration of its HD camcorder will probably be an improvement.
> >> > However,
> >> > if you're very, very serious about producing the highest quality
video,
> >> > you might want to check out Sony's new HD machine.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Since you are working with unedited video, that you will
> >> be applying image altering effects to, it is in your interest to
> >> suffer through the long wait when you later encode to DVD
> >> compliant MPEG. If you want to have available the most
> >> processing options, then you should remain in the least
> >> compressed format, as long as possible, and save a copy
> >> at each processing stage.
> >>
> >> So, in this case not in MPEG2 or most certainly not
> >> MPEG4.
> >
> > There are only two prosumer HD camcorders on the market, the Sony FX-1
and
> > the JVC JY-HD10U. Both use miniDV tape and both encode video as mpeg2.
> > Both retail for around $3000. They are the only game in town for HD
under
> > high five figures.
> >
> > Adobe Premiere Pro (a prosumer editing package) has plug-ins that
support
> > both of these cameras. The resolution gain with HD, as compared with
SD,
> > as
> > well as the sophisticated editing features of Premiere Pro, ensure
> > professional-quality video.
> >
> > It is absolutely ludicrous to say "avoid mpeg2" in this context.
Prosumer
> > uncompressed HD camcorders simply don't exist, so mpeg2 couldn't be
> > avoided
> > even if there was any reason to avoid it in this application which, of
> > course, there is not. This is HD, not SD, encoded by a pro-grade
hardware
> > encoder at the camera, not a toy capture card designed for PC hobbyists.
> > It
> > is intended to be edited in a professional-grade editing package, not
> > VideoReDo.
> >
>
> My, how your tune has changed.

It hasn't changed. You're just, evidently, too unfamiliar with video
standards to understand what I've said.

When your only tool is a hammer, you'll think every repair can be done with
a nail.

> Perhaps not, it's still that the
> Pro way is the only way, even when it's now the way you have
> been arguing against all this time.

There's just so much wrong with what you've written:

1. The OP asked about high-quality video. Do you understand anything about
HD and what it can be used for? Hint: This thread discusses indie and
commercial film production using DV.

2. The equipment I mentioned isn't "pro," but prosumer. It is specifically
intended for "serious video hobbyists," which is how the OP described
himself. Pro HD equipment, on the other hand, starts in the $50-$100k range
and goes way up from there.

3. I haven't been arguing against it, i.e. mpeg. What I argued against was
your claim that there's no practical quality difference in the video that
results from capturing to a computer in AVI, editing in a true editing
package and then transcoding with a decent quality tool, and your technique
of capturing to a computer in mpeg, editing in
VideoReDo, then using DVD Shrink to fit the resulting mess onto a DVD.
Your technique is fine for archiving OTA video IF you're not too concerned
with quality (I use a variation on it when I want to take videos with me on
my laptop to view on the plane), but totally inappropriate for a native
video source intended to be used in a project that will be distributed via
DVD.

You're an "only a hammer" kind of guy. Stick to giving advice about making
"Survivor" compilations for SVCD; I'm sure you know far more about the best
tools for doing it than I. However, your comment to my post proves you
don't know what you're talking about when it comes to video production.


> What ever became of your
> "you can't edit MPEG" refrain?

I never said you can't edit mpeg. I said it's stupid (yes, STUPID) to
capture uncompressed video to mpeg if you're going to edit it (and I'm using
"edit" in the sense of "assemble video into a coherent production by making
aesthetic judgments as to clip placement and transitions," not, "chop out
the commericals"). The reason for this is the quality loss that comes from
having to re-transcode, both for transitions, correction and effects, and to
select a bitrate that will fit the project into the available space on a
DVD.

The two HD cameras that I've referenced do not produce uncompressed video,
but using high-quality hardware encoders to save video to tape in mpeg2
format. High-quality programs like Adobe Premiere Pro (and Vegas which, I
think, can also handle HD mpeg from these cameras) can edit these formats
without compromising quality too much (and the operative words are "too
much"). You're not going to edit THIS mpeg in VideoReDo or, for that
matter, something Studio 9 or even Premiere Elements.

> Is that "Horrendous
> degradation" no longer to be encountered, because it's Adobe
> doing it now?

The horrendous degradation comes from your "technique," such as it is, of
capturing uncompressed video as mpeg (using your hobbyist capture board),
editing it in anything (including Premiere), then re-recompressing with DVD
Shrink.

>
> What about your claim that hardware single pass real time
> encoding can never be any good?

I said that _consumer_ hardware single-pass realtime encoding can never be
any good. Satellite and cable do real-time mpeg encoding all the time.
You're not seriously comparing the hardware encoders in a $4000+ prosumer
camera like the FX-1 to that toy board that you use in your computer, are
you?

> Tell me what are the factors
> that have changed so that now it's acceptable?

Read above and this time try to understand that there are more tools in the
tool shed than just hammers.

>
> I don't remember the OP mentioning taking the leap to HD.

No, the OP just talked about high-quality video, the techniques for
producing which you appear to be entirely unfamiliar. If the OP wants to
make his own movies, which it appears that he does, he has a range of
choices in the prosumer market. He can buy an SD camera for between $2-3k
(or used for somewhat less), or he can buy an HD camera for $4-5k. The
latter has 4x the resolution of the former, and a 24-frame-per-second mode
(which vastly simplifies distribution on 35mm film), both of which make it
an attractive AND more suitable choice for indie production.

> I
> had the impression that he wasn't going to be able to write the
> expense of HD hardware and software off his taxes, like some
> can.

So what? I can't write the expense of my video equipment off my taxes
either but, nonetheless, I have a solid prosumer setup and produce
professional-quality (in terms of technical quality) video.

> In other posts I've mentioned the possibility that we may
> be headed towards editing MPEG with a selective encoding
> approach. For those of us without Tax write offs, or very deep
> pockets, HD MPEG Editing is likely to not be for some time yet.

For those of you interested in compiling OTA broadcasts, HD won't be of any
interest or relevance for quite some time. For those of us interested in
producing high-quality video, HD mpeg editing is here right now. I'm not
ready to upgrade my camera equipment because I don't have an HDTV. However,
if I did, all it would take is the purchase of an FX-1 ($4500 list) and the
download of a free plug-in from Adobe and I'd be capturing and editing HD in
Premiere Pro.


>
> As to the toy nature of my hardware encoder chip, it's the same
> one that TiVo used to create their Series 2 units.

So what? The Series 2 is a consumer unit, just like your toy capture card.
Don't get me wrong, I have a Tivo (a Series 1 DTivo) and I like it very
much -- for what it does, i.e. a PVR for OTA satellite broadcasts. You're
not seriously suggesting that the video quality output from a Tivo is, in
any way, equivalent to SD dv-codec-encoded AVI transcoded to mpeg using a
decent software encoder, are you? Put simply, the output of your Tivo looks
the same to you as a commerically-produced DVD? If so, it's long past time
to get a new televsion -- or a new pair of glasses.

> The A/D chip
> in front of the encoder is the much praised Philips SAA7114H.
> The web sites for both Philips and Broadcom have detailed
> descriptions of these chips. The encoder is the BCM7040 or
> "Kfir-II". I don't actually expect that you will check these ICs
> out, and fully expect that you will turn your nose up at a mere
> consumer product like TiVo, but it is sometimes good to set
> the record straight for others that may be reading this thread.

See, this is your problem. I don't "turn up my nose" at consumer products.
Consumer products are fine when they are used for consumer applications.
Neither Tivo, the manufacturer of your toy capture board, the producers of
VideoReDo, or any of the other hammer-like tools that you use make any
pretense that their products are capable of professional-quality output. On
the other hand, prosumer gear like the VX2000 and FX-1, Adobe Premiere,
Adobe Encore, Ligos and other video PRODUCTION tools CAN create
professional-quality output.

I have more than hammers in my tool shed. And, more to the point, I've
taken the trouble to learn about hammer alternatives.

>
> Luck;
> Ken
>
>
>
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 8:07:01 PM

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

You will keep changing what I have said to make it a different
argument.

I have never compared my results to your results. I have not
seen your results and have no way to make the comparison.

I have never compared my results to a commercial DVD.

I have only compared my results with my sources. The common
S-Video Analog source most of us have coming into our homes.
( Why you are so offended that my results compare favorably
with my sources, is beyond me.)

I have never claimed that anyone should capture unedited material
in MPEG. In fact I have recommended not using a compressed
format like MPEG ( as what brought you into this thread) for such
endeavors.

I have never watched any episode of "Survivors" or more than part
of any "South Park" episode.

I do not capture with a "Hauppauge" product USB or otherwise.

Both your and my postings are here for all to see, it is a simple
exercise to find the truth of the situation.

Luck;
Ken
!