Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Best capture format for digitizing Hi8 tapes?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 11:03:53 PM

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

I'm trying to digitize some Hi8 tapes using the A/V conversion/pass-through
feature of a Sony Digital8 camcorder, onto my XP Pro PC. Since the
resolution and quality of Hi8 is supposed to be inferior to DV, is capturing
to standard DV format necessary to get the best capture quality, or should I
use a more compressed capture format, and if so which?

--
Kovie
kovie@earthlink.netizen
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 2:25:01 AM

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

I'm sure you'll get other feedback on this but in my experience with what
you're doing: use DV-AVI's at full quality.

You're playing a game of "who's the weakest link?"
Don't flirt with that line and you won't risk deteriorating the quality of
your source material any more than it is.

C.



"Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote in message
news:HrednSUdq5k1w6vfRVn-qg@comcast.com...
> I'm trying to digitize some Hi8 tapes using the A/V
> conversion/pass-through feature of a Sony Digital8 camcorder, onto my XP
> Pro PC. Since the resolution and quality of Hi8 is supposed to be inferior
> to DV, is capturing to standard DV format necessary to get the best
> capture quality, or should I use a more compressed capture format, and if
> so which?
>
> --
> Kovie
> kovie@earthlink.netizen
>
>
>
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 2:55:30 AM

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

Thanks. I might as well, although now I'm going to need close to 200 DVDs to
archive my 30 tapes...

--
Kovie
kovie@earthlink.netizen


"C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote in message
news:D oWdnfCWaPQC_qvfRVn-hA@rogers.com...
> I'm sure you'll get other feedback on this but in my experience with what
> you're doing: use DV-AVI's at full quality.
>
> You're playing a game of "who's the weakest link?"
> Don't flirt with that line and you won't risk deteriorating the quality of
> your source material any more than it is.
>
> C.
>
>
>
> "Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote in message
> news:HrednSUdq5k1w6vfRVn-qg@comcast.com...
>> I'm trying to digitize some Hi8 tapes using the A/V
>> conversion/pass-through feature of a Sony Digital8 camcorder, onto my XP
>> Pro PC. Since the resolution and quality of Hi8 is supposed to be
>> inferior to DV, is capturing to standard DV format necessary to get the
>> best capture quality, or should I use a more compressed capture format,
>> and if so which?
>>
>> --
>> Kovie
>> kovie@earthlink.netizen
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 6:34:18 AM

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

You'll need more like 120 DVDs. Even so, you're point is well taken.
I'm going through the same procedure and there are few options:

Many will point you towards MPEG-2, but that will compromise the
quality of your videos. In other words, your new originals will be of
lesser quality than your current originals.

I'm in the camp that feels it's best to archive only those tapes that
are getting too old and in danger of degredation. Then just wait a
year or two for the new DVD format that will hold significantly more
video.

MD
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 2:42:35 PM

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

AH! You didn't mention you had that many tapes. ;) 

I like MD's approach of justing converting tapes that are at risk of
destruction and waiting until the larger HD-DVD or BluRay discs come out in
a year or so. You could at least start capturing to DV-AVI's and decide what
you want to do with them once they're safely digitized.

What's your intended USE for the material on the tapes? That'll be the
biggesting determining factor for how they're processed...

C.


"Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote in message
news:Aq2dncUbK9puCavfRVn-tg@comcast.com...
> Thanks. I might as well, although now I'm going to need close to 200 DVDs
> to archive my 30 tapes...
>
> --
> Kovie
> kovie@earthlink.netizen
>
>
> "C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote in message
> news:D oWdnfCWaPQC_qvfRVn-hA@rogers.com...
>> I'm sure you'll get other feedback on this but in my experience with what
>> you're doing: use DV-AVI's at full quality.
>>
>> You're playing a game of "who's the weakest link?"
>> Don't flirt with that line and you won't risk deteriorating the quality
>> of your source material any more than it is.
>>
>> C.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote in message
>> news:HrednSUdq5k1w6vfRVn-qg@comcast.com...
>>> I'm trying to digitize some Hi8 tapes using the A/V
>>> conversion/pass-through feature of a Sony Digital8 camcorder, onto my XP
>>> Pro PC. Since the resolution and quality of Hi8 is supposed to be
>>> inferior to DV, is capturing to standard DV format necessary to get the
>>> best capture quality, or should I use a more compressed capture format,
>>> and if so which?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Kovie
>>> kovie@earthlink.netizen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 6:30:26 PM

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

Keep in mind that any DV pass through converter will do the same thing -
convert an analog signal into DV signal. Because they're usually not
affected by make or input signal, usually never matters whether you feed
your 8mm tapes through a converter built into a camcorder or an external
digitizer box -- basically, you'll get the same high quality DV video
output that you're looking for.

So, that said, don't worry - keep using your digital8 passthrough feature.

---

As for MPEG2 quality, it's always lower than DV because it uses a higher
compression -- but, you can get quite good conversions!

---

If you've got the time, $139 iLo DVD recorder or any other dvd recorder
that has a IEEE 1394/firewire input port will let you convert to DVDs on
the fly (ie. real-time, no need to do anything on the PC).

Naturally, you'll have to use the higher quality modes (XP, SP) instead
of the lower quality modes (EP, LP) for the best quality.

---

You can usually expect that because Hi8 isn't as high resolution as DVDs
or DV video, you can rest assured that conversion to MPEG-2 isn't going
to do much to degrade what you have already.

www.bealecorner.com -> TRV900 -> DV vs. DVD vs. VCD vs SVCD comparison
subsection to see what the visual image quality differences are.

---

You can easily adjust most TV DVD Recorder decks between 1hr/disc to
6+hr/disc. Usually SP (2hr/disc) fits a single 8mm 2hr tape just fine,
with good visual quality. You rarely have to up it to 1hr/tape just to
get the video to fit, but you can adjust how many hours fit/tape (thus
visual quality) finely on the high-end decks (eg. even the Pioneer
DVR-220-S at $199 at walmart allows this fine control).

---

Keep in mind that the camcorder -> TV DVD recorder won't be as good as a
camcorder -> PC -> post-processing -> 2 pass MPEG-2 conversion -> DVD
burn at the same bitrate (DVD decks can't do 2 pass encodings); but at
1hr/disc, you can get excellent video quality w/o all of that work.

(If you want, www.videohelp.com and www.doom9.org for help on the
conversion by PC.

Basically, capture to DV, post-process through VirtualDub + noise,
color, etc. filters, convert using a quality two-pass MPEG-2 encoder
such as Cinema Craft Encoder (one of the very best, if not the best),
then burn to DVD.

(Note: above takes HOURS! per 1 hr of DV source video - easily 6+ hours
to convert & process per hour of DV video on a 3Ghz P4).

---

You may want to simply dub the tapes from Hi8 to Digital8 tapes instead
-- this does a DV conversion to Digital8 format, and keeps as high
quality as the original as possible in a backup. Error correction in
the digital8 format gives added protection.

Then, simply wait a year or two until HD DVD recorders (or BluRay
recorders) are released, and you can then dub happily to HD DVDs (which
are tens of times better quality than a DVD and will maintain the full
quality of your source tapes easily).

Keep in mind that tapes are among one of the longest lasting storage
media around, with VHS tapes sitting around for 20 years and still
playing just fine.

DVDs are so immature as a technology, some of the ones made only 2-3
years ago have rotted and deteriorated (like some of mine; the gluing of
the two layers together is problematic, esp. after flexing when being
released from the case spindle). So don't think DVDs made today will
outlast a tape copy made today in use or storage!

---

If you must do it now: dub once to DVD deck recorder; another to Digital
8 tape. This will guarentee the best change the video will survive at
least 15-20 years in storage.
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 10:58:22 PM

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

Well, each Hi8 tape recorded at SP hold just over 2hrs of video. Converted
into DV that's 25GB per tape. Divided by 4.37GB per single-layer DVD-R, that
comes out to 5.72 or 6 DVD-Rs. Multiply that by 30 tapes and you get 180
DVD-R's.

Thus, you can see why I'd want to see if it's possible to use a lower
bitrate format. That's a lot of DVD burning, not to mention capturing,
dividing into 4GB segments, labelling, etc.

I'm going to try to convert as many tapes as I can before I'm ready to go
postal, and then maybe take your advice and wait a year or two until
higher-capacity DVDs come out and make this moot. ;-)

--
Kovie
kovie@earthlink.netizen


<mdindestin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110886458.119531.250590@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> You'll need more like 120 DVDs. Even so, you're point is well taken.
> I'm going through the same procedure and there are few options:
>
> Many will point you towards MPEG-2, but that will compromise the
> quality of your videos. In other words, your new originals will be of
> lesser quality than your current originals.
>
> I'm in the camp that feels it's best to archive only those tapes that
> are getting too old and in danger of degredation. Then just wait a
> year or two for the new DVD format that will hold significantly more
> video.
>
> MD
>
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 3:20:02 AM

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

<mdindestin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110886458.119531.250590@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> You'll need more like 120 DVDs. Even so, you're point is well taken.
> I'm going through the same procedure and there are few options:
>
> Many will point you towards MPEG-2, but that will compromise the
> quality of your videos. In other words, your new originals will be of
> lesser quality than your current originals.

Nonsense.

>
> I'm in the camp that feels it's best to archive only those tapes that
> are getting too old and in danger of degredation. Then just wait a
> year or two for the new DVD format that will hold significantly more
> video.
>
> MD
>
March 16, 2005 4:34:26 AM

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

"Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote:

>I'm trying to digitize some Hi8 tapes using the A/V conversion/pass-through
>feature of a Sony Digital8 camcorder, onto my XP Pro PC. Since the
>resolution and quality of Hi8 is supposed to be inferior to DV, is capturing
>to standard DV format necessary to get the best capture quality, or should I
>use a more compressed capture format, and if so which?

I've been copying my DV video camera tapes to DVD using the 2 hour
quality option. This means I can fit 2 hours of good quality video on
a single DVD disc. This has a sampling rate of 5-8 Mbps
MPG2 format offers a good quality for compressed video.
Some programs such as Ulead's DVD Movie Factory are able to write
directly to DVD as you play the tape like a DVD recorder. Available
from www.ulead.com

If want a higher quality then there is a 1 hour option (HQ) that will
store 1 hour of video on a single DVD disc. This has a sampling rate
of 8-10 Mbps.

Regards Brian
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 9:59:54 AM

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

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:03:53 -0800, "Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen>
wrote:

>I'm trying to digitize some Hi8 tapes using the A/V conversion/pass-through
>feature of a Sony Digital8 camcorder, onto my XP Pro PC. Since the
>resolution and quality of Hi8 is supposed to be inferior to DV, is capturing
>to standard DV format necessary to get the best capture quality, or should I
>use a more compressed capture format, and if so which?

Capture the analog tapes to DV on the hard drive, then copy them back
to the camera, in DV, onto 8mm tapes.
March 16, 2005 8:22:36 PM

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

I was just going to suggest that also, once they are converted to digital,
the quality loss ends, in the fact it will stay the same from this point on,
so long as no further changes are made to the digital file.
You can then store on fresh digital tapes and wait for blu-ray to emerge in
a few years(and be cheap), rather than pay big bucks the first year it's
introduced.
Also you can make dvd's from the digital files to watch and enjoy so you
don't risk damaging the new tapes. :) 

AnthonyNYC
"Gweezo" <gweezo@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:lpeg31p2s521dl67be81t7bgdhi16rug9g@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:03:53 -0800, "Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen>
> wrote:
>
>>I'm trying to digitize some Hi8 tapes using the A/V
>>conversion/pass-through
>>feature of a Sony Digital8 camcorder, onto my XP Pro PC. Since the
>>resolution and quality of Hi8 is supposed to be inferior to DV, is
>>capturing
>>to standard DV format necessary to get the best capture quality, or should
>>I
>>use a more compressed capture format, and if so which?
>
> Capture the analog tapes to DV on the hard drive, then copy them back
> to the camera, in DV, onto 8mm tapes.
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 10:08:13 PM

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

"C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote in message
news:KdSdnRgl_r3mjarfRVn-1A@rogers.com...
> AH! You didn't mention you had that many tapes. ;) 
>
> I like MD's approach of justing converting tapes that are at risk of
> destruction and waiting until the larger HD-DVD or BluRay discs come out
> in a year or so. You could at least start capturing to DV-AVI's and decide
> what you want to do with them once they're safely digitized.
>
> What's your intended USE for the material on the tapes? That'll be the
> biggesting determining factor for how they're processed...
>
> C.
>
>

Ultimately, I'd like to edit this footage, and then compress it and burn it
to DVD, but first I need to have it in digital form to be able to do that.
It's not about being worried about degradation. A few more years probably
won't matter. But I have been meaning to get to these tapes for some time
now and don't want to wait any longer. I'm not happy about the number of
DV-format DVDs I'm going to have to burn, but at least this will get me
started sooner.
--
Kovie
kovie@earthlink.netizen
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 10:16:59 PM

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

"AnthonyR" <nomail@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:wXZZd.35398$534.21574@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>>
>> Capture the analog tapes to DV on the hard drive, then copy them back
>> to the camera, in DV, onto 8mm tapes.
>

This saves me time and bother, but not money. 30 HI8 tapes recorded at SP
(2hrs) = 60 DV tapes (1hr), which comes to around $200. Copied onto 180
DVDs, it comes out to around $60. And I'd still have to copy each DV back to
my PC in real time for editing, whereas I'd have the footage in more
accessible format on DVD. Big tradeoffs either way.

--
Kovie
kovie@earthlink.netizen
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 4:46:46 PM

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

"David Chien" <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote in message
news:D 17r67$n27$1@news.service.uci.edu...
> Keep in mind that any DV pass through converter will do the same thing -
> convert an analog signal into DV signal. Because they're usually not
> affected by make or input signal, usually never matters whether you feed
> your 8mm tapes through a converter built into a camcorder or an external
> digitizer box -- basically, you'll get the same high quality DV video
> output that you're looking for.
>
> So, that said, don't worry - keep using your digital8 passthrough feature.
>
> ---
>
> As for MPEG2 quality, it's always lower than DV because it uses a higher
> compression -- but, you can get quite good conversions!
>
> ---
>
> If you've got the time, $139 iLo DVD recorder or any other dvd recorder
> that has a IEEE 1394/firewire input port will let you convert to DVDs on
> the fly (ie. real-time, no need to do anything on the PC).
>
> Naturally, you'll have to use the higher quality modes (XP, SP) instead of
> the lower quality modes (EP, LP) for the best quality.
>
> ---
>
> You can usually expect that because Hi8 isn't as high resolution as DVDs
> or DV video, you can rest assured that conversion to MPEG-2 isn't going to
> do much to degrade what you have already.
>
> www.bealecorner.com -> TRV900 -> DV vs. DVD vs. VCD vs SVCD comparison
> subsection to see what the visual image quality differences are.
>
> ---
>
> You can easily adjust most TV DVD Recorder decks between 1hr/disc to
> 6+hr/disc. Usually SP (2hr/disc) fits a single 8mm 2hr tape just fine,
> with good visual quality. You rarely have to up it to 1hr/tape just to
> get the video to fit, but you can adjust how many hours fit/tape (thus
> visual quality) finely on the high-end decks (eg. even the Pioneer
> DVR-220-S at $199 at walmart allows this fine control).
>
> ---
>
> Keep in mind that the camcorder -> TV DVD recorder won't be as good as a
> camcorder -> PC -> post-processing -> 2 pass MPEG-2 conversion -> DVD burn
> at the same bitrate (DVD decks can't do 2 pass encodings); but at
> 1hr/disc, you can get excellent video quality w/o all of that work.
>
> (If you want, www.videohelp.com and www.doom9.org for help on the
> conversion by PC.
>
> Basically, capture to DV, post-process through VirtualDub + noise, color,
> etc. filters, convert using a quality two-pass MPEG-2 encoder such as
> Cinema Craft Encoder (one of the very best, if not the best), then burn to
> DVD.
>
> (Note: above takes HOURS! per 1 hr of DV source video - easily 6+ hours to
> convert & process per hour of DV video on a 3Ghz P4).
>
> ---
>
> You may want to simply dub the tapes from Hi8 to Digital8 tapes instead --
> this does a DV conversion to Digital8 format, and keeps as high quality as
> the original as possible in a backup. Error correction in the digital8
> format gives added protection.
>
> Then, simply wait a year or two until HD DVD recorders (or BluRay
> recorders) are released, and you can then dub happily to HD DVDs (which
> are tens of times better quality than a DVD and will maintain the full
> quality of your source tapes easily).
>
> Keep in mind that tapes are among one of the longest lasting storage media
> around, with VHS tapes sitting around for 20 years and still playing just
> fine.
>
> DVDs are so immature as a technology, some of the ones made only 2-3 years
> ago have rotted and deteriorated (like some of mine; the gluing of the two
> layers together is problematic, esp. after flexing when being released
> from the case spindle). So don't think DVDs made today will outlast a
> tape copy made today in use or storage!
>
> ---
>
> If you must do it now: dub once to DVD deck recorder; another to Digital 8
> tape. This will guarentee the best change the video will survive at least
> 15-20 years in storage.
>

A truly excellent post, it seems to cover all sides of the issue.
One thing I can't understand, is how you are avoiding the knee
jerk response of such as: "Ptravel", "Chuck U. Farley", "John
S. Dyson" or any of the rest of that crowd?

Is there some repellent that I could spray on my posts to
keep such pests away?

Luck;
Ken
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 11:03:53 PM

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

In article <B7mdnWHeiP28TqDfRVn-ow@giganews.com>,
"Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
> A truly excellent post, it seems to cover all sides of the issue.
> One thing I can't understand, is how you are avoiding the knee
> jerk response of such as: "Ptravel", "Chuck U. Farley", "John
> S. Dyson" or any of the rest of that crowd?
>
> Is there some repellent that I could spray on my posts to
> keep such pests away?
>
Why are you so rude, when I have provided technically correct
information, while you prescribe such inadequate technology
as Philips composite decoder chips? Truly, you seem to be
a seriously disturbed wannabe.

I can point you to some real technical/research information on the
technology, and perhaps you can learn to understand the problems
with MPEG2 and DV25 encoding. Certainly I have NOT said that people
shouldn't use the primitive techniques that you suggest, but your
approach is clearly technically inferior. My approaches actually
require little more effort, but provide vastly superior results.

Imagine a copy of an LD that (truly) looks like an original DVD (except
slightly softer!!!) Using your suggested low-end approaches certainly
provide inferior results. (Non-3D approaches will retain a strong NTSC
footprint.) The Philips composite decoder (composite decoding not
really needed for 8mm anyway), is of a family that AFAIR is a multi-line
line comb, and causes the loss of diagonal resolution. (Typical of
most non3D schemes.)

Equivalent considerations are also important for 8mm video. But remember,
hobbiest quality as you suggest might just be adequate!!!

John
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 11:03:54 PM

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

"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
news:D 1kkv9$1kao$1@news.iquest.net...
> In article <B7mdnWHeiP28TqDfRVn-ow@giganews.com>,
> "Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>
>> A truly excellent post, it seems to cover all sides of the issue.
>> One thing I can't understand, is how you are avoiding the knee
>> jerk response of such as: "Ptravel", "Chuck U. Farley", "John
>> S. Dyson" or any of the rest of that crowd?
>>
>> Is there some repellent that I could spray on my posts to
>> keep such pests away?
>>
> Why are you so rude, when I have provided technically correct
> information, while you prescribe such inadequate technology
> as Philips composite decoder chips? Truly, you seem to be
> a seriously disturbed wannabe.
>
> I can point you to some real technical/research information on the
> technology, and perhaps you can learn to understand the problems
> with MPEG2 and DV25 encoding. Certainly I have NOT said that people
> shouldn't use the primitive techniques that you suggest, but your
> approach is clearly technically inferior. My approaches actually
> require little more effort, but provide vastly superior results.
>
> Imagine a copy of an LD that (truly) looks like an original DVD (except
> slightly softer!!!) Using your suggested low-end approaches certainly
> provide inferior results. (Non-3D approaches will retain a strong NTSC
> footprint.) The Philips composite decoder (composite decoding not
> really needed for 8mm anyway), is of a family that AFAIR is a multi-line
> line comb, and causes the loss of diagonal resolution. (Typical of
> most non3D schemes.)
>
> Equivalent considerations are also important for 8mm video. But remember,
> hobbiest quality as you suggest might just be adequate!!!
>
> John
>

I realize that you find the practical real world approaches that
were pointed out by "Susan" and I (in the other thread) as well
as those posting in this thread; to be "inadequate technology",
"primitive techniques", and "clearly technically inferior". But
your claim that : " My approaches actually require little more
effort, but provide vastly superior results.", is way over blown.

If you include the amount of time required to complete a
process as a measure of the "effort" involved, the "large
scale processing of the video (in) the digital domain" [your
words] that you find so superior, can necessitate tens of
hours of effort for each hour of video. To me that's a lot
more than a "little more effort".

As to how "vastly superior" your results might be, it might
carry more weight if you were willing to stick to a source
of the quality under discussion. But I haven't seen what
you can do with the common video sources that we lowly
"hobbiest" deal with every day. So I can only compare
my results with the material I'm capturing and processing
into a final DVD, played on a normal TV. I notice very,
very little, if any, loss in quality. This is most defiantly
"adequate", thank you.

Luck;
Ken
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 3:45:51 AM

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

In article <numdneEq5o-ccqDfRVn-2A@giganews.com>,
"Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
> "John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
> news:D 1kkv9$1kao$1@news.iquest.net...
>> In article <B7mdnWHeiP28TqDfRVn-ow@giganews.com>,
>> "Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>
>>> A truly excellent post, it seems to cover all sides of the issue.
>>> One thing I can't understand, is how you are avoiding the knee
>>> jerk response of such as: "Ptravel", "Chuck U. Farley", "John
>>> S. Dyson" or any of the rest of that crowd?
>>>
>>> Is there some repellent that I could spray on my posts to
>>> keep such pests away?
>>>
>> Why are you so rude, when I have provided technically correct
>> information, while you prescribe such inadequate technology
>> as Philips composite decoder chips? Truly, you seem to be
>> a seriously disturbed wannabe.
>>
>> I can point you to some real technical/research information on the
>> technology, and perhaps you can learn to understand the problems
>> with MPEG2 and DV25 encoding. Certainly I have NOT said that people
>> shouldn't use the primitive techniques that you suggest, but your
>> approach is clearly technically inferior. My approaches actually
>> require little more effort, but provide vastly superior results.
>>
>> Imagine a copy of an LD that (truly) looks like an original DVD (except
>> slightly softer!!!) Using your suggested low-end approaches certainly
>> provide inferior results. (Non-3D approaches will retain a strong NTSC
>> footprint.) The Philips composite decoder (composite decoding not
>> really needed for 8mm anyway), is of a family that AFAIR is a multi-line
>> line comb, and causes the loss of diagonal resolution. (Typical of
>> most non3D schemes.)
>>
>> Equivalent considerations are also important for 8mm video. But remember,
>> hobbiest quality as you suggest might just be adequate!!!
>>
>> John
>>
>
> I realize that you find the practical real world approaches that
> were pointed out by "Susan" and I (in the other thread) as well
> as those posting in this thread; to be "inadequate technology",
>
Remember: when someone mentions a senerio about creating/maintaining
something like a master tape/disk, then quality can be a bigger consideration
than just spewing off some distributions. If you are making a tape for
a gradeschooler, then the tradeoffs are different than making tapes of
lost family members or somesuch. Keeping your mind open as to the alternatives
would give you a bigger toolkit than otherwise might be.

Why are you so contrary? I am simply showing the alternatives and
also providing most accurate and complete information possible in such
a short message. If you
find that exposing maximum valid information as being inappropriate, then
there might be a little fear of new ideas somewhere. Just becuase the
information is provided, doesn't mean that you need to read it.
There is nothing wrong with the information that you have provided,
except for certain areas of inaccuracy, incompleteness and a little
too much ego tied in. Some of your most important suggestions
arent' really all that bad, but it is arrogant to assume that people
shouldn't or needn't know things. On the other hand, I believe that
people should be offered as much ACCURATE information as reasonable,
and those who aren't interested can ignore it.

INACCURATE information is most distressing to me, and it is
even more distressing when included into confrontational
discussions. A few of your claims were quite wrong and might
be misleading to future programmers or DSP developers (soon
in a career, the claims would be clearly shown to be incorrect.)
PLEASE don't make claims that significant noise reduction is best
done before digitization (A/D), for example. Too often, analog domain
noise reduction entails ALOT of loss of information that can be
effectively used in digital processing!!! On the other hand,
careful bandlimiting, dithering or response shaping can be quite
helpful for subsequent digital processing. When you use typical
schemes like coring in the analog domain, that ALMOST does the
opposite of what is helpful in digital processing... Of course,
statements that are made with too much generality would be easily
proven to be wrong or suboptimal.

I don't judge the lower end technology as 'inadequate' for every
application, but as less than optimum from the standpoint of quality.
It is indeed true that I find that excellent quality is very important
to me, and some of your suggestions wouldn't attain that. Providing
some of your misleading claims and being overly self-assured when
you make the claims do make discussion more unpleasant than need be.

I do happen to understand and be very practically experienced
with almost all of the associated compression/decompression and
video processing technology. My background includes engineering,
mathematics and software, where the synergy of my technical background
can help me to help those who aren't quite so well educated (or
experienced.)

Actually having TECHNICALLY ACCURATE information being provided to you
should make you feel good that some of the 'common knowledge' that you
are using might be indeed accurate!!!

If you were honest about my writings, you would also note that I have
admitted (a couple of times) that a less than 'best' video quality
is often sufficient. Also, please don't project my statements of
fact and opinion as condescention. I just don't have that kind of
attitude.

Why do you make assertions about my information (e.g. that I might
be judging something as 'inadquate'), where it is more accurate to
claim that some of your suggestions might result in lower quality
than what is easily attainable?

REMEMBER: I did admit that some very simple arrangements can work,
but are also sometimes lower quality than need be.

Providing the 'best' possible quality can also have some drawbacks, but
essentially destroying a video collection with lots of
DSP artifacts is kind of sad. (If a tape collection is being replaced,
it is very critical to do the best job possible.) It is
sad when you might make suggestions that will provide less than
optimum results, and you appear to be uncomfortable when presented
with better researched.

Admittedly, people don't always want 'complete' information and only
want quick answers. When you provide 'quick' answers, it would be
better if you were a little more accurate.

John
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 3:45:52 AM

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

"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
news:D 1l5fv$1pds$1@news.iquest.net...
> In article <numdneEq5o-ccqDfRVn-2A@giganews.com>,
> "Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>


> Providing the 'best' possible quality can also have some drawbacks, but
> essentially destroying a video collection with lots of
> DSP artifacts is kind of sad. (If a tape collection is being replaced,
> it is very critical to do the best job possible.) It is
> sad when you might make suggestions that will provide less than
> optimum results, and you appear to be uncomfortable when presented
> with better researched.
>
> Admittedly, people don't always want 'complete' information and only
> want quick answers. When you provide 'quick' answers, it would be
> better if you were a little more accurate.
>
> John
>

You are aware that DSP = Digital Signal Processing, and reflects
what you keep claiming is the "BEST" method of NR.

Luck;
Ken
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 4:21:24 AM

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

In article <hrCdnYK9V95KgaPfRVn-pg@giganews.com>,
"Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
> "John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
> news:D 1l5fv$1pds$1@news.iquest.net...
>> In article <numdneEq5o-ccqDfRVn-2A@giganews.com>,
>> "Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>
>
>
>> Providing the 'best' possible quality can also have some drawbacks, but
>> essentially destroying a video collection with lots of
>> DSP artifacts is kind of sad. (If a tape collection is being replaced,
>> it is very critical to do the best job possible.) It is
>> sad when you might make suggestions that will provide less than
>> optimum results, and you appear to be uncomfortable when presented
>> with better researched.
>>
>> Admittedly, people don't always want 'complete' information and only
>> want quick answers. When you provide 'quick' answers, it would be
>> better if you were a little more accurate.
>>
>> John
>>
>
> You are aware that DSP = Digital Signal Processing, and reflects
> what you keep claiming is the "BEST" method of NR.
>
DSP techniques vs. analog techniques, DSP gives you alot more
flexibility. With traditional analog, there are serious limitations
as to the behavior of the 'building blocks' available. DSP
techniques open up vast possibilities. You kept on talking about
doing processing before digitization, which implies the analog
domain. (Well, not 100% precisely, because there are technologies
where processing is done with sampled, but non-digitized methods.
Such methods are not very common nowadays, with CCDs being relatively
less common than they were in the '70s.)

There are a couple of significant issues when working in the
digital domain (probably a few more):

1) Adequate sampling rate and/or adequate band limiting before
sampling.

2) Adequate bit depth per sample.

In some respects the sample rate and bit depth can be partially
traded off, if the signal hasn't been 'cored' to death. (Well,
if the signal is adequately dithered.)

With the vast amount of accurate memory in the digital world, there
is the ability to do lots of video processing in the temporal domain, not
being mostly limited to the spatial domain. Tranditional analog "Noise
reduction" in the form of coring can be needlessly damaging when using
further DSP techinques.

John
!