Best capture format for digitizing Hi8 tapes?

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
18 answers Last reply
More about best capture format digitizing tapes
  1. 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
    >
    >
    >
  2. 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:DoWdnfCWaPQC_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
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  3. 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
  4. 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:DoWdnfCWaPQC_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
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  5. 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.
  6. 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
    >
  7. 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
    >
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "David Chien" <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote in message
    news:d17r67$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
  14. 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
  15. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
    news:d1kkv9$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
  16. 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:d1kkv9$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
  17. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
    news:d1l5fv$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
  18. 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:d1l5fv$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
Ask a new question

Read More

Tuner Cards Desktops Format Graphics