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 Incidently, the VX2000 has been superceded by the VX2100.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
>
>
>
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram