Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Advice on Analog to Digital Conversion

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 6:19:24 PM

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

I have tons of old 8mm tapes that I'd like to bring into the digital
age (specifically to DVD). What I'd like to do is transfer all my raw
footage to DVD (or CD) at the maximum quality level with no
editing--just straight transfer.

Then, I'd like use those DVDs or CDs as "masters" to begin the long
process of editing into themed, authored DVDs.

I have a Mini DV camcorder but it does not have A/D passthrough
conversion capability so I will need a video capture device. Also, I
have not yet purchased a DVD burner.

I'd like some recommendations please. I've got my eye on some of the
Pinnacle Studio products for capture. Anyone have any experience with
them?

Also, I want maximum DVD player compatibility (i.e., play anywhere)
with regard to final DVD creation. Any software/hardware
recommendations would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 6:35:02 PM

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

"MrTobor" <tobor8man@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111101564.390811.167540@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>I have tons of old 8mm tapes that I'd like to bring into the digital
> age (specifically to DVD). What I'd like to do is transfer all my raw
> footage to DVD (or CD) at the maximum quality level with no
> editing--just straight transfer.

Buy a stand alone recorder...Pioneer or Panasonic.

>
> Then, I'd like use those DVDs or CDs as "masters" to begin the long
> process of editing into themed, authored DVDs.

You can edit later in DVD Author.

>
> I have a Mini DV camcorder but it does not have A/D passthrough
> conversion capability so I will need a video capture device. Also, I
> have not yet purchased a DVD burner.
>
> I'd like some recommendations please. I've got my eye on some of the
> Pinnacle Studio products for capture. Anyone have any experience with
> them?
>
> Also, I want maximum DVD player compatibility (i.e., play anywhere)
> with regard to final DVD creation. Any software/hardware
> recommendations would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
>
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 7:31:18 PM

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

"Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
news:113k515dk1qoo35@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "MrTobor" <tobor8man@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1111101564.390811.167540@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>I have tons of old 8mm tapes that I'd like to bring into the digital
>> age (specifically to DVD). What I'd like to do is transfer all my raw
>> footage to DVD (or CD) at the maximum quality level with no
>> editing--just straight transfer.
>
> Buy a stand alone recorder...Pioneer or Panasonic.

Do NOT buy a stand alone recorder.

The OP wants to archive analog video that will later be edited. He wants
the video at highest quality. Stand alone recorders transcode video to mpeg
and burn video DVDs. This entails significant compresion, which lowers
video quality, and results in a format that can only be edited with great
difficulty and subsequent quality loss.


>
>>
>> Then, I'd like use those DVDs or CDs as "masters" to begin the long
>> process of editing into themed, authored DVDs.
>
> You can edit later in DVD Author.
>
>>
>> I have a Mini DV camcorder but it does not have A/D passthrough
>> conversion capability so I will need a video capture device. Also, I
>> have not yet purchased a DVD burner.
>>
>> I'd like some recommendations please. I've got my eye on some of the
>> Pinnacle Studio products for capture. Anyone have any experience with
>> them?
>>
>> Also, I want maximum DVD player compatibility (i.e., play anywhere)
>> with regard to final DVD creation. Any software/hardware
>> recommendations would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
>>
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 11:52:24 PM

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

"PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39um6aF5f9jj9U1@individual.net...
>
> "Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
> news:113k515dk1qoo35@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "MrTobor" <tobor8man@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1111101564.390811.167540@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>>I have tons of old 8mm tapes that I'd like to bring into the digital
>>> age (specifically to DVD). What I'd like to do is transfer all my raw
>>> footage to DVD (or CD) at the maximum quality level with no
>>> editing--just straight transfer.
>>
>> Buy a stand alone recorder...Pioneer or Panasonic.
>
> Do NOT buy a stand alone recorder.
>
> The OP wants to archive analog video that will later be edited.

He wants DVD. DVD. Brain dead?


>He wants the video at highest quality.

DV 25 mbit second is highest?


>Stand alone recorders transcode video to mpeg and burn video DVDs. This
>entails significant compresion, which lowers video quality, and results in
>a format that can only be edited with great difficulty and subsequent
>quality loss.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> Then, I'd like use those DVDs or CDs as "masters" to begin the long
>>> process of editing into themed, authored DVDs.
>>
>> You can edit later in DVD Author.
>>
>>>
>>> I have a Mini DV camcorder but it does not have A/D passthrough
>>> conversion capability so I will need a video capture device. Also, I
>>> have not yet purchased a DVD burner.
>>>
>>> I'd like some recommendations please. I've got my eye on some of the
>>> Pinnacle Studio products for capture. Anyone have any experience with
>>> them?
>>>
>>> Also, I want maximum DVD player compatibility (i.e., play anywhere)
>>> with regard to final DVD creation. Any software/hardware
>>> recommendations would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 3:30:23 AM

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

"Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
news:113knkahghg3qec@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:39um6aF5f9jj9U1@individual.net...
>>
>> "Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
>> news:113k515dk1qoo35@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>> "MrTobor" <tobor8man@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1111101564.390811.167540@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>>>I have tons of old 8mm tapes that I'd like to bring into the digital
>>>> age (specifically to DVD). What I'd like to do is transfer all my raw
>>>> footage to DVD (or CD) at the maximum quality level with no
>>>> editing--just straight transfer.
>>>
>>> Buy a stand alone recorder...Pioneer or Panasonic.
>>
>> Do NOT buy a stand alone recorder.
>>
>> The OP wants to archive analog video that will later be edited.
>
> He wants DVD. DVD. Brain dead?

No, I can read. Evidently you can't. Here's what the OP said:

"I have tons of old 8mm tapes that I'd like to bring into the digital age
(specifically to DVD). What I'd like to do is transfer all my raw footage to
DVD (or CD) at the maximum quality level with no editing--just straight
transfer.

Then, I'd like use those DVDs or CDs as "masters" to begin the long process
of editing into themed, authored DVDs."

Let's parse it out -- he'd like to ARCHIVE video to DVD. Then he'd like to
use the DVD as a MASTER so that he can EDIT them into AUTHORED DVDs.

1. Archive video to DVD.
2. Edit the video on the DVD.
3. Create an authored DVD after editing.

Now, here's what I wrote:

Standalone recorders transcode analog video to mpeg. Now, maybe you don't
know this, but the compression scheme used by mpeg uses a master frame
followed by a number of other frames in which only the differences from the
master frame are recorded. This makes doing anything but non-frame-accurate
cuts editing extremely difficult, because all intermediate frames must be
derived from the master frame and any transitions, corrections or effects
require that the whole sequence be re-rendered. This results in degraded
video, which is why no one interested in standard-definition video quality
edits in mpeg.

Of course, we're not done yet. In order to do what you propose, for the OP
to edit, he will need to convert the VOB files on the DVD to mpeg (not too
big a deal) if he's going to try to edit in the format (which, as I've
explained, is a very poor approach), or, he will need to convert the VOB
files to a format which does not use intermediate, calculated frames, e.g.
dv-encoded avi, which all good editing programs will accept. Of course, in
doing so, he introduces an additional, 2nd transcoding step. And, finally,
once he has edited his video, he will need to re-transcode back to mpeg, for
a third transcoding step. At each transcoding step, he will lose video
quality.

Now do you understand?


>
>
>>He wants the video at highest quality.
>
> DV 25 mbit second is highest?

DV-25 would probably be fine for his purposes. How much disk space do you
think he has?

Oh, and one other question:

Why is the ignorance and arrogance always seem to go hand-in-hand?

>
>
>>Stand alone recorders transcode video to mpeg and burn video DVDs. This
>>entails significant compresion, which lowers video quality, and results in
>>a format that can only be edited with great difficulty and subsequent
>>quality loss.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then, I'd like use those DVDs or CDs as "masters" to begin the long
>>>> process of editing into themed, authored DVDs.
>>>
>>> You can edit later in DVD Author.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have a Mini DV camcorder but it does not have A/D passthrough
>>>> conversion capability so I will need a video capture device. Also, I
>>>> have not yet purchased a DVD burner.
>>>>
>>>> I'd like some recommendations please. I've got my eye on some of the
>>>> Pinnacle Studio products for capture. Anyone have any experience with
>>>> them?
>>>>
>>>> Also, I want maximum DVD player compatibility (i.e., play anywhere)
>>>> with regard to final DVD creation. Any software/hardware
>>>> recommendations would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 3:39:41 AM

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

"PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39vht6F6267l6U1@individual.net...
>
> "Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
> news:113knkahghg3qec@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:39um6aF5f9jj9U1@individual.net...
>>>
>>> "Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
>>> news:113k515dk1qoo35@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>
>>>> "MrTobor" <tobor8man@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1111101564.390811.167540@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>I have tons of old 8mm tapes that I'd like to bring into the digital
>>>>> age (specifically to DVD). What I'd like to do is transfer all my raw
>>>>> footage to DVD (or CD) at the maximum quality level with no
>>>>> editing--just straight transfer.
>>>>
>>>> Buy a stand alone recorder...Pioneer or Panasonic.
>>>
>>> Do NOT buy a stand alone recorder.
>>>
>>> The OP wants to archive analog video that will later be edited.
>>
>> He wants DVD. DVD. Brain dead?
>
> No, I can read. Evidently you can't. Here's what the OP said:
>
> "I have tons of old 8mm tapes that I'd like to bring into the digital age
> (specifically to DVD). What I'd like to do is transfer all my raw footage
> to DVD (or CD) at the maximum quality level with no editing--just straight
> transfer.
>
> Then, I'd like use those DVDs or CDs as "masters" to begin the long
> process of editing into themed, authored DVDs."
>
> Let's parse it out -- he'd like to ARCHIVE video to DVD. Then he'd like
> to use the DVD as a MASTER so that he can EDIT them into AUTHORED DVDs.
>
> 1. Archive video to DVD.
> 2. Edit the video on the DVD.
> 3. Create an authored DVD after editing.
>
> Now, here's what I wrote:
>
> Standalone recorders transcode analog video to mpeg. Now, maybe you don't
> know this, but the compression scheme used by mpeg uses a master frame
> followed by a number of other frames in which only the differences from
> the master frame are recorded. This makes doing anything but
> non-frame-accurate cuts editing extremely difficult, because all
> intermediate frames must be derived from the master frame and any
> transitions, corrections or effects require that the whole sequence be
> re-rendered. This results in degraded video, which is why no one
> interested in standard-definition video quality edits in mpeg.
>
> Of course, we're not done yet. In order to do what you propose, for the
> OP to edit, he will need to convert the VOB files on the DVD to mpeg (not
> too big a deal) if he's going to try to edit in the format (which, as I've
> explained, is a very poor approach), or, he will need to convert the VOB
> files to a format which does not use intermediate, calculated frames, e.g.
> dv-encoded avi, which all good editing programs will accept. Of course,
> in doing so, he introduces an additional, 2nd transcoding step. And,
> finally, once he has edited his video, he will need to re-transcode back
> to mpeg, for a third transcoding step. At each transcoding step, he will
> lose video quality.
>
> Now do you understand?
>
>
>>
>>
>>>He wants the video at highest quality.
>>
>> DV 25 mbit second is highest?
>
> DV-25 would probably be fine for his purposes. How much disk space do you
> think he has?
>
> Oh, and one other question:
>
> Why is the ignorance and arrogance always seem to go hand-in-hand?


This is a question you know the answer to all to well, since you evidence
both traits invariably.
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 3:43:14 AM

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

PS

I suggest you read Susan's response, since it is correct.
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 5:00:03 AM

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

"Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
news:113l5531p80aj7c@corp.supernews.com...
> PS
>
> I suggest you read Susan's response, since it is correct.

Then perhaps you or Susan can suggest how the OP will edit the video that he
captures.

(I'll ignore the schoolyard response from your other post).

>
>
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 8:53:34 AM

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

In article <113knkahghg3qec@corp.supernews.com>,
"Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> writes:
>
> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:39um6aF5f9jj9U1@individual.net...
>>
>> "Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
>> news:113k515dk1qoo35@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>> "MrTobor" <tobor8man@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1111101564.390811.167540@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>>>I have tons of old 8mm tapes that I'd like to bring into the digital
>>>> age (specifically to DVD). What I'd like to do is transfer all my raw
>>>> footage to DVD (or CD) at the maximum quality level with no
>>>> editing--just straight transfer.
>>>
>>> Buy a stand alone recorder...Pioneer or Panasonic.
>>
>> Do NOT buy a stand alone recorder.
>>
>> The OP wants to archive analog video that will later be edited.
>
> He wants DVD. DVD. Brain dead?
>
He did say that he wanted to capture to DVD, subsequently edit
and then produce a final DVD. Actually, it isn't a really good
idea to do two concatenated (term of art, means multiple compression
decompression) of low rate MPEG2 -- DVD is a little too limited
at about 8-9mbps for the highest quality.

>
>
>>He wants the video at highest quality.
>
> DV 25 mbit second is highest?
>
DV 25mbit with good quality (current) encoders is damned good -- but
not quite as good as the nearly transparent DV50 or DigiBeta. Claiming
that DVD is 'highest quality' would be utilizing alot more poetic
license than claiming that DV25 is 'highest' quality.

One big quality issue is that neither DV25 nor MPEG2 like to see much noise
in the video, but DV25 with current generation encoders can deal with
more random content. It would make sense to use a super high quality
DV25 encoder (e.g. Canopus ADVC300), and then subsequently use a non-realtime
(non-causal filtering) MPEG2 encoder with lots of noise reduction. You
can get the benefits of noise reduction with almost NO artifacting and
no quality loss relative to consumer tape formats. Almost as good as using
'best quality' DV25 encoding, using almost unlimited MPEG2 bandwidth (e.g.
15mbps or faster) can be useful to allow the MPEG2 encoder to deal better
with totally random input (noise in consumer video.)

* When recording noisy video onto MPEG2, if there isn't a heap of
noise reduction, there is much less advantage to the inter-frame
compression. It is still more effective than DV25, but also more
artifact prone than just to ignore inter-frame information and just
use DV25 compression. (AFAIR, DV25 still tries to take advantage of
intra-frame similarity by optionally taking advantage of the similarity
of two fields, but the payload capability of DV25 allows for more
noise data.) When ignoring the noise in DCT domain compression, there
is some artifacting that makes it sometimes look worse than other
kinds of information limiting.


Perhaps the biggest theoretical loss of quality when mastering DV25 onto
MPEG2 is the mismatch of the 4:1:1 to 4:2:0 color sampling. This is almost
a non-issue given composite or color-under (consumer analog) video sources.

Basically, using DV25 before MPEG2 does limit the chroma response from
3+MHz to 1.4-1.5MHz... This is significantly greater chroma than what
can be supplied by Hi8, 8mm, BetaMax, SuperBeta, EDBeta, SVHS, laser disk,
OTA video, CED Video or any other common consumer video source. Consumer
video sources tend to be limited to approx 500kHz (or less) of color
data per component, except LD which can theoretically approach 1.2-1.5MHz
in both components, if some rules are bent. Otherwise, the chroma
bandwidth would tend to be limited to approx 1.2MHz and (afair 0.5MHz?)
(Using widerband LD chroma might introduce some artifacting on decoders
that aren't prepared to handle it.)

It is true that the realtime MPEG2 encoders (used in set-top DVD recorders)_
can be pretty good, but to get the maximum, noise free quality, it can
be better to use offline (often very slow) noise reduction. This slowness
can gain significant quality because of the potential for non-causal
filtering. (Offline noise reduction can look forwards and backwards in
time, while real time processing TENDS to be more limited.)

It isn't WRONG to use a set-top DVD recorder, and if one is used, then
just max-out the quality settings, and be careful about comet-tailing
(or other motion artifacts) when enabling the (very much needed)
online, real-time video noise reduction for MPEG2 encoding of noisy
consumer video.

John
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 8:53:35 AM

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

"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
news:D 1dqcu$2gka$1@news.iquest.net...
> In article <113knkahghg3qec@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> writes:
>>
>> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:39um6aF5f9jj9U1@individual.net...
>>>
>>> "Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
>>> news:113k515dk1qoo35@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>
>>>> "MrTobor" <tobor8man@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1111101564.390811.167540@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>I have tons of old 8mm tapes that I'd like to bring into the digital
>>>>> age (specifically to DVD). What I'd like to do is transfer all my raw
>>>>> footage to DVD (or CD) at the maximum quality level with no
>>>>> editing--just straight transfer.
>>>>
>>>> Buy a stand alone recorder...Pioneer or Panasonic.
>>>
>>> Do NOT buy a stand alone recorder.
>>>
>>> The OP wants to archive analog video that will later be edited.
>>
>> He wants DVD. DVD. Brain dead?
>>
> He did say that he wanted to capture to DVD, subsequently edit
> and then produce a final DVD. Actually, it isn't a really good
> idea to do two concatenated (term of art, means multiple compression
> decompression) of low rate MPEG2 -- DVD is a little too limited
> at about 8-9mbps for the highest quality.
>
>>
>>
>>>He wants the video at highest quality.
>>
>> DV 25 mbit second is highest?
>>
> DV 25mbit with good quality (current) encoders is damned good -- but
> not quite as good as the nearly transparent DV50 or DigiBeta. Claiming
> that DVD is 'highest quality' would be utilizing alot more poetic
> license than claiming that DV25 is 'highest' quality.
>
> One big quality issue is that neither DV25 nor MPEG2 like to see much
> noise
> in the video, but DV25 with current generation encoders can deal with
> more random content. It would make sense to use a super high quality
> DV25 encoder (e.g. Canopus ADVC300), and then subsequently use a
> non-realtime
> (non-causal filtering) MPEG2 encoder with lots of noise reduction. You
> can get the benefits of noise reduction with almost NO artifacting and
> no quality loss relative to consumer tape formats. Almost as good as
> using
> 'best quality' DV25 encoding, using almost unlimited MPEG2 bandwidth (e.g.
> 15mbps or faster) can be useful to allow the MPEG2 encoder to deal better
> with totally random input (noise in consumer video.)
>
> * When recording noisy video onto MPEG2, if there isn't a heap of
> noise reduction, there is much less advantage to the inter-frame
> compression. It is still more effective than DV25, but also more
> artifact prone than just to ignore inter-frame information and just
> use DV25 compression. (AFAIR, DV25 still tries to take advantage of
> intra-frame similarity by optionally taking advantage of the similarity
> of two fields, but the payload capability of DV25 allows for more
> noise data.) When ignoring the noise in DCT domain compression, there
> is some artifacting that makes it sometimes look worse than other
> kinds of information limiting.
>
>
> Perhaps the biggest theoretical loss of quality when mastering DV25 onto
> MPEG2 is the mismatch of the 4:1:1 to 4:2:0 color sampling. This is
> almost
> a non-issue given composite or color-under (consumer analog) video
> sources.
>
> Basically, using DV25 before MPEG2 does limit the chroma response from
> 3+MHz to 1.4-1.5MHz... This is significantly greater chroma than what
> can be supplied by Hi8, 8mm, BetaMax, SuperBeta, EDBeta, SVHS, laser disk,
> OTA video, CED Video or any other common consumer video source. Consumer
> video sources tend to be limited to approx 500kHz (or less) of color
> data per component, except LD which can theoretically approach 1.2-1.5MHz
> in both components, if some rules are bent. Otherwise, the chroma
> bandwidth would tend to be limited to approx 1.2MHz and (afair 0.5MHz?)
> (Using widerband LD chroma might introduce some artifacting on decoders
> that aren't prepared to handle it.)
>
> It is true that the realtime MPEG2 encoders (used in set-top DVD
> recorders)_
> can be pretty good, but to get the maximum, noise free quality, it can
> be better to use offline (often very slow) noise reduction. This slowness
> can gain significant quality because of the potential for non-causal
> filtering. (Offline noise reduction can look forwards and backwards in
> time, while real time processing TENDS to be more limited.)
>
> It isn't WRONG to use a set-top DVD recorder, and if one is used, then
> just max-out the quality settings, and be careful about comet-tailing
> (or other motion artifacts) when enabling the (very much needed)
> online, real-time video noise reduction for MPEG2 encoding of noisy
> consumer video.
>
> John

I do not disagree. But this individual is not going to research all of the
data, spend months of testing Codecs, etc. The set top boxes have various
forms of noise reduction geared for NTSC. Many of these are equal to very
expensive proprietary approaches. I presumed these variables in my
statement.
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 9:29:07 AM

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

In article <113kr4j95en5078@corp.supernews.com>,
"Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> writes:
>
> "John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
> news:D 1dqcu$2gka$1@news.iquest.net...
>> In article <113knkahghg3qec@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> writes:
>>>
>>> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:39um6aF5f9jj9U1@individual.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:113k515dk1qoo35@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "MrTobor" <tobor8man@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1111101564.390811.167540@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>I have tons of old 8mm tapes that I'd like to bring into the digital
>>>>>> age (specifically to DVD). What I'd like to do is transfer all my raw
>>>>>> footage to DVD (or CD) at the maximum quality level with no
>>>>>> editing--just straight transfer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Buy a stand alone recorder...Pioneer or Panasonic.
>>>>
>>>> Do NOT buy a stand alone recorder.
>>>>
>>>> The OP wants to archive analog video that will later be edited.
>>>
>>> He wants DVD. DVD. Brain dead?
>>>
>> He did say that he wanted to capture to DVD, subsequently edit
>> and then produce a final DVD. Actually, it isn't a really good
>> idea to do two concatenated (term of art, means multiple compression
>> decompression) of low rate MPEG2 -- DVD is a little too limited
>> at about 8-9mbps for the highest quality.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>He wants the video at highest quality.
>>>
>>> DV 25 mbit second is highest?
>>>
>> DV 25mbit with good quality (current) encoders is damned good -- but
>> not quite as good as the nearly transparent DV50 or DigiBeta. Claiming
>> that DVD is 'highest quality' would be utilizing alot more poetic
>> license than claiming that DV25 is 'highest' quality.
>>
>> One big quality issue is that neither DV25 nor MPEG2 like to see much
>> noise
>> in the video, but DV25 with current generation encoders can deal with
>> more random content. It would make sense to use a super high quality
>> DV25 encoder (e.g. Canopus ADVC300), and then subsequently use a
>> non-realtime
>> (non-causal filtering) MPEG2 encoder with lots of noise reduction. You
>> can get the benefits of noise reduction with almost NO artifacting and
>> no quality loss relative to consumer tape formats. Almost as good as
>> using
>> 'best quality' DV25 encoding, using almost unlimited MPEG2 bandwidth (e.g.
>> 15mbps or faster) can be useful to allow the MPEG2 encoder to deal better
>> with totally random input (noise in consumer video.)
>>
>> * When recording noisy video onto MPEG2, if there isn't a heap of
>> noise reduction, there is much less advantage to the inter-frame
>> compression. It is still more effective than DV25, but also more
>> artifact prone than just to ignore inter-frame information and just
>> use DV25 compression. (AFAIR, DV25 still tries to take advantage of
>> intra-frame similarity by optionally taking advantage of the similarity
>> of two fields, but the payload capability of DV25 allows for more
>> noise data.) When ignoring the noise in DCT domain compression, there
>> is some artifacting that makes it sometimes look worse than other
>> kinds of information limiting.
>>
>>
>> Perhaps the biggest theoretical loss of quality when mastering DV25 onto
>> MPEG2 is the mismatch of the 4:1:1 to 4:2:0 color sampling. This is
>> almost
>> a non-issue given composite or color-under (consumer analog) video
>> sources.
>>
>> Basically, using DV25 before MPEG2 does limit the chroma response from
>> 3+MHz to 1.4-1.5MHz... This is significantly greater chroma than what
>> can be supplied by Hi8, 8mm, BetaMax, SuperBeta, EDBeta, SVHS, laser disk,
>> OTA video, CED Video or any other common consumer video source. Consumer
>> video sources tend to be limited to approx 500kHz (or less) of color
>> data per component, except LD which can theoretically approach 1.2-1.5MHz
>> in both components, if some rules are bent. Otherwise, the chroma
>> bandwidth would tend to be limited to approx 1.2MHz and (afair 0.5MHz?)
>> (Using widerband LD chroma might introduce some artifacting on decoders
>> that aren't prepared to handle it.)
>>
>> It is true that the realtime MPEG2 encoders (used in set-top DVD
>> recorders)_
>> can be pretty good, but to get the maximum, noise free quality, it can
>> be better to use offline (often very slow) noise reduction. This slowness
>> can gain significant quality because of the potential for non-causal
>> filtering. (Offline noise reduction can look forwards and backwards in
>> time, while real time processing TENDS to be more limited.)
>>
>> It isn't WRONG to use a set-top DVD recorder, and if one is used, then
>> just max-out the quality settings, and be careful about comet-tailing
>> (or other motion artifacts) when enabling the (very much needed)
>> online, real-time video noise reduction for MPEG2 encoding of noisy
>> consumer video.
>>
>> John
>
> I do not disagree. But this individual is not going to research all of the
> data, spend months of testing Codecs, etc. The set top boxes have various
> forms of noise reduction geared for NTSC. Many of these are equal to very
> expensive proprietary approaches. I presumed these variables in my
> statement.
>
I have seen some examples of motion artifacting when using real time noise
reduction before MPEG2 compression... This is one reason why I tend to resist
that scheme. It seems like alot of people are tolerant of noise reduction
artifacts that I am not tolerant of. When I made my suggestion, I was
trying to make sure that the 'master' copies have the least damage possible.
If a practical master is made to 'DVD', then the noise reduction artifacts
(LARGE amounts of noise reduction are often very necessary for MPEG2 encoding)
will be imprinted on the signal forever.

If this wasn't essentially a 'master' copy, then noise reduction artifacts
onto a distribution copy is of less consequence.

Indeed, if the original poster is interested in a 'quick' solution, then
a set-top DVD recorder will necessarily be the best (but non-optimal
quality) solution. On the other hand, using a compression scheme that
can withstand some video noise (definitely not MPEG2), and with reasonably
limited real-time video noise reduction (e.g. the ADVC300) and timebase
correction, then the slightly imperfect, but minimally damaged master
images can be DV25 format. (Of course, a practical set top DVD recorder has
to have lots of noise reduction and some kind of tolerance of time
base errors, not claiming that a set top DVD recorder is necessarily
lacking features.) One could take the suggestion to an extreme, and
master onto DV50 or DigiBeta, where the master would be minimally
damaged. In fact, that is EXACTLY what I do before mastering onto DV25...

With a minimally damaged DV25 recording, then subsequent non-realtime
noise reduction can produce a nearly artifact free MPEG2 video, probably
significantly better than the MPEG2 master that is produced by the
set-top box. The 'sad' thing is that the damaged MPEG2 master with
a set top box will likely be used (after some editing/processing) to
produce an even more damaged MPEG2 copy. If minimal processing/changes
are made to the master copy while recording onto the distribution
master, then it is possible that the additional artifacts due to recompression
will be limited (hopefully.)

How much damage is the user willing to accept? This depends upon his/her
tolerance to spending time on finding/developing and implementing
a solution to the problem along with simple tolerance to video defects.
Truly, it isn't necessary that video always be perfect.

It is possible that the 'probable' lower quality option of multiple MPEG2
encode/decode cycles will be MORE DESIREABLE than the 'probable' higher
quality option of using reasonably well encoded DV25, and then production
of an MPEG2 product. It is definitely easier to use a set top DVD recorder,
and the results just might be adequate for the user!

In my own case, I cannot stand the motion artifacts that I have seen with
noise reduction before MPEG2 encoding, but on the other hand, my current
setup doesn't produce visible artifacts... (Interestingly, IMO, I can
take a moderate quality LD -- e.g. Cars Heartbeat City, with significant
chroma noise, and produce a DVD that ALMOST looks like NTSC never touched
it, and solid chroma... It looks like a slightly limited bandwidth DVD,
with no significant NTSC footprint or large area chroma noise!!! Most
importantly, no visible comet tailing or odd motion stuttering/smear
artifacting.) Likewise, such feats of magic can be done with original
tape formats also -- except with significantly greater bandwith limits
for 8mm, VHS or Beta/SuperBeta.

John
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 9:32:51 AM

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

In article <vgsk31p6dsfon7p1rkan91vjt8gl4dno8l@4ax.com>,
Christopher Pollard <rubbish@cginternet.net> writes:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:52:24 -0800, "Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote:
>
>> What I'd like to do is transfer all my raw
>>>>> footage to DVD (or CD) at the maximum quality level with no
>>>>> editing--just straight transfer.
>>>>
>>>> Buy a stand alone recorder...Pioneer or Panasonic.
>>>
>>> Do NOT buy a stand alone recorder.
>>>
>>> The OP wants to archive analog video that will later be edited.
>>
>>He wants DVD. DVD. Brain dead?
>
> AIUI, he wants to save the data on a DVD, but not necessarily one which could be
> played directly. He's just using it as a storage medium.
>
> Why not just save it on a big hard drive instead, then do the editing thing from
> there?
>
Given the large size of hard drives nowadays, that is one reason why DV25
would potentially be superior. The DV25 copy could actually be stored
on a few DVDs, but in relatively less compressed form (and not playable
on DVD player, but usable on PC.)

I actually don't always use my DV25 deck while playing out from the minimally
noise reduced DV50, but record directly using the ADVC300 onto hard disk.

The ADVC300 plus a PC almost equals a fixed media DV deck. In my
case, the DV deck is mostly used to create backups, which could nowadays
instead be multiple DVD-Rs or DVD-RWs.

John
March 18, 2005 9:54:55 AM

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

"MrTobor" <tobor8man@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I have tons of old 8mm tapes that I'd like to bring into the digital
>age (specifically to DVD). What I'd like to do is transfer all my raw
>footage to DVD (or CD) at the maximum quality level with no
>editing--just straight transfer.
>
>Then, I'd like use those DVDs or CDs as "masters" to begin the long
>process of editing into themed, authored DVDs.
>
>I have a Mini DV camcorder but it does not have A/D passthrough
>conversion capability so I will need a video capture device. Also, I
>have not yet purchased a DVD burner.
>
>I'd like some recommendations please. I've got my eye on some of the
>Pinnacle Studio products for capture. Anyone have any experience with
>them?
>
>Also, I want maximum DVD player compatibility (i.e., play anywhere)
>with regard to final DVD creation. Any software/hardware
>recommendations would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Hi,

Since you have 8mm which you want to eventually put on DVDs, you have
several basic options. NOTE, I would not even think about using CDs.

You could spend a lot of time and effort to capture the 8mm through a
DV converter (DV or D8 camcorder, box or card) to your computer,
transcode to MPG2 and burn to DVD.

You could convert direct to MPG2 on your computer and burn, or

You could use a stand alone DVD recorder.

Since pristine 8mm at SP is limited to about 240 lines of resolution
with lousy color, I would forget about DV and either capture in MPG2
or use a stand alone DVD recorder. However, if you plan to upgrade to
DV anyway, then you could go that route since you'll need the
capability later.

The most important thing when using 8mm or VHS is to maintain the very
best analog signal possible before you digitize. I would make sure
the player is the best you can beg or borrow, that the heads and tapes
are clean, and that you run the analog signal through a time base
corrector and proc amp (to adjust the saturation, hue, contrast,
brightness and sharpness, etc.) BEFORE you digitize. Remember, the
image will never be better than what you capture. Garbage in, garbage
out. All the post processing in the world will never make up for a
lack of care before capturing. The number one cause of lousy picture
quality, OOS and dropped frames with 8mm and VHS is a bad analog
signal.

If you go the MPG2 route, I would definitely not put more than two
hours of video on a DVD if you want to do any editing. It would be
best to limit yourself to one hour of video to a DVD.

A major limitation with MPG2 is repeated and often unintended
recoding. What you want to do is settle on a bitrate and image size
that you use to do all of your capturing, editing and burning, so you
don't end up recoding your video several times.

Finally, (with 8mm video) as long as you stay above 4000 Kbps you are
probably safe using CBR. Certainly, at 6000 or above there is
absolutely no need for VBR.

No "home' burned DVD will play on all set-top DVD players. However,
any newer software/hardware package should be able to burn a DVD-R
disk that will play on most recent players. Some older players and
some combination VHS/DVD players do have problems with almost all
non-commercial DVDs. In that case, only a new DVD player will solve
the problem. On the other hand, some players will play anything you
throw at them. You just have to try and see.

Hope this helps,

Susan
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 2:17:39 PM

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

"Alpha" wrote ...

> I suggest you read Susan's response, since it is correct.

Except that it appears to suffer from the fatal flaw that
it completely ignores the OPs requirement for "extensive
editing". (Which Ptravel's response DOES address.)
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 2:36:31 PM

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

"Susan" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:p fsk31ptbvk6i7japoo3e11uf0spkju75v@4ax.com...
> "MrTobor" <tobor8man@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I have tons of old 8mm tapes that I'd like to bring into the digital
>>age (specifically to DVD). What I'd like to do is transfer all my raw
>>footage to DVD (or CD) at the maximum quality level with no
>>editing--just straight transfer.
>>
>>Then, I'd like use those DVDs or CDs as "masters" to begin the long
>>process of editing into themed, authored DVDs.
>>
>>I have a Mini DV camcorder but it does not have A/D passthrough
>>conversion capability so I will need a video capture device. Also, I
>>have not yet purchased a DVD burner.
>>
>>I'd like some recommendations please. I've got my eye on some of the
>>Pinnacle Studio products for capture. Anyone have any experience with
>>them?
>>
>>Also, I want maximum DVD player compatibility (i.e., play anywhere)
>>with regard to final DVD creation. Any software/hardware
>>recommendations would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
>
> Hi,
>
> Since you have 8mm which you want to eventually put on DVDs, you have
> several basic options. NOTE, I would not even think about using CDs.
>
> You could spend a lot of time and effort to capture the 8mm through a
> DV converter (DV or D8 camcorder, box or card) to your computer,
> transcode to MPG2 and burn to DVD.
>
> You could convert direct to MPG2 on your computer and burn, or
>
> You could use a stand alone DVD recorder.
>
> Since pristine 8mm at SP is limited to about 240 lines of resolution
> with lousy color, I would forget about DV and either capture in MPG2
> or use a stand alone DVD recorder. However, if you plan to upgrade to
> DV anyway, then you could go that route since you'll need the
> capability later.
>
> The most important thing when using 8mm or VHS is to maintain the very
> best analog signal possible before you digitize. I would make sure
> the player is the best you can beg or borrow, that the heads and tapes
> are clean, and that you run the analog signal through a time base
> corrector and proc amp (to adjust the saturation, hue, contrast,
> brightness and sharpness, etc.) BEFORE you digitize. Remember, the
> image will never be better than what you capture. Garbage in, garbage
> out. All the post processing in the world will never make up for a
> lack of care before capturing. The number one cause of lousy picture
> quality, OOS and dropped frames with 8mm and VHS is a bad analog
> signal.
>
> If you go the MPG2 route, I would definitely not put more than two
> hours of video on a DVD if you want to do any editing. It would be
> best to limit yourself to one hour of video to a DVD.
>
> A major limitation with MPG2 is repeated and often unintended
> recoding. What you want to do is settle on a bitrate and image size
> that you use to do all of your capturing, editing and burning, so you
> don't end up recoding your video several times.
>
> Finally, (with 8mm video) as long as you stay above 4000 Kbps you are
> probably safe using CBR. Certainly, at 6000 or above there is
> absolutely no need for VBR.
>
> No "home' burned DVD will play on all set-top DVD players. However,
> any newer software/hardware package should be able to burn a DVD-R
> disk that will play on most recent players. Some older players and
> some combination VHS/DVD players do have problems with almost all
> non-commercial DVDs. In that case, only a new DVD player will solve
> the problem. On the other hand, some players will play anything you
> throw at them. You just have to try and see.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Susan
>

Exactly, but you will never get some of this crowd to view the
issue from the realworld circumstances of the OP, or most others
who will be reading these posts. They will change the issue to, or
use examples that make a case for the benefits of working with
low compression high bandwidth DV. Even using the LD example
is a total misdirection, some laserdisks are made with 1.5 MHz or
even 2 MHz bandwidth for both color components. ( A typical TV
signal is 0.5 to 0.6 MHz)

For non-aerial transmission of video, the 4.2 MHz upper limit does not
apply and luminance information goes up to 5.3 MHz (425 lines) for
laser disks and 7.0 MHz (540 lines) for DVD. This permits the color
signal sidebands to extend 1.5 MHz on both sides of the 3.58 MHz
subcarrier, and even composite video can carry 120 lines of color
resolution. Laser disk programs, which are based on composite video,
can have the same color horizontal resolution as programs transmitted
as S-video. Although S-video standards provide 120 lines of resolution,
some manufacturers use a color decoder for S-video as well as composite
video that has only 60 lines of resolution.

* When recording using any consumer grade VCR; the bandwidth of
the recorded color signal is enough for at most 32 lines. *

For NTSC, the picture occupies approximately 480 of the 512 scan
lines. For broadcasts the portion of a scan line that is visible can hold up
to about 440 dots so a grid 480 high by 440 wide represents the maximum
amount of picture detail possible.

While NTSC broadcasts have about 440 maximum pixels across the
screen (MPA) and NTSC laser disks have about 565, crisp resolution is
probably more like 400 MPA for broadcasts and 500 for laser disk.

A standard (4:3) TV set can be said to have 600 lines of horizontal
resolution.
However if the source material had just 330 lines of resolution you will see
just
330 lines of resolution. A 16:9 aspect ratio TV that can reproduce just 800
dots
across its screen would have 450 lines of horizontal resolution.

For analog video (broadcasts, VHS tape, laser disks) we can think of the
horizontal pixel count as the maximum amount of the finest details that can
be
put on a line and still be distinguished.

To convert between pixels and lines of resolution we must apply the Circle
Rule
in the longer direction (horizontally); after that we always apply the
Extended Kell
factor vertically, and we apply the Extended Kell factor horizontally for
digital video
only. Therefore:

To convert pixels wide to horizontal lines of resolution we divide by the
aspect ratio
and multiply by the Extended Kell factor (=/<0.7).

To convert horizontal lines of resolution to needed pixels we multiply by
the aspect
ratio and divide by the Extended Kell factor.

Please excuse all the tech talk, but it is somewhat necessary to show
how some of the "Pro" posters are really comparing "Apples and Oranges"
to make their points. They put down procedures that work with the "real
world" analog video sources, that most of have to work with, by making
comparisons using pristine high bandwidth DV, as their source. Those of
use working with 4.2.0 don't have the luxury of actual 4.4.4 sources.

Luck;
Ken
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 4:38:40 PM

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

On a sunny day (Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:30:23 -0800) it happened "PTRAVEL"
<ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in <39vht6F6267l6U1@individual.net>:

>Of course, we're not done yet. In order to do what you propose, for the OP
>to edit, he will need to convert the VOB files on the DVD to mpeg (not too
>big a deal)
It is called 'demux' and not 'convert'.

>if he's going to try to edit in the format (which, as I've
>explained, is a very poor approach),
No it is not.

>or, he will need to convert the VOB
>files to a format which does not use intermediate, calculated frames, e.g.
>dv-encoded avi, which all good editing programs will accept.
Please 'all good editing programs' is that vdub only?

>Of course, in
>doing so, he introduces an additional, 2nd transcoding step.
Have you EVER edited a VOB or mpeg2?
It does not have to be re-encoded.
Some mpeg editors allow you to cut 'in' a GOP too, while only re-encoding
that GOP.
In all other cases (cut at GOP) there is zero loss.
MS windows womble mpeg editor, try it.
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 4:38:41 PM

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

> >Of course, we're not done yet. In order to do what you propose, for the
OP
> >to edit, he will need to convert the VOB files on the DVD to mpeg (not
too
> >big a deal)
> It is called 'demux' and not 'convert'.

I see where this is going already, we've got a techie who wants to flaunt
his "knowledge".
>
> >if he's going to try to edit in the format (which, as I've
> >explained, is a very poor approach),
> No it is not.

Direct editing in mpeg format is, in _fact_, a poor approach.

> >or, he will need to convert the VOB
> >files to a format which does not use intermediate, calculated frames,
e.g.
> >dv-encoded avi, which all good editing programs will accept.
> Please 'all good editing programs' is that vdub only?

Hardly. Any true NLE fits into that description. And btw, mpeg editors are
not NLE's in any but the most basic, rudimentary sense.

> >Of course, in
> >doing so, he introduces an additional, 2nd transcoding step.
> Have you EVER edited a VOB or mpeg2?
> It does not have to be re-encoded.

If you're doing anything other than a very basic slice and dice, which the
OP is _not_ interested in by the statements:

"What I'd like to do is transfer all my raw footage to DVD (or CD) at the
maximum quality level with no editing--just straight transfer."

and

"Then, I'd like use those DVDs or CDs as "masters" to begin the long process
of editing into themed, authored DVDs."


then there will be _substantial_ re-encoding.


> Some mpeg editors allow you to cut 'in' a GOP too, while only re-encoding
> that GOP.
> In all other cases (cut at GOP) there is zero loss.
> MS windows womble mpeg editor, try it.

Notice the words "maximum quality" in the OP's above statement? If you think
that mpeg encoded data is of higher "quality" than DV or uncompressed avi,
then your technical knowledge of *nix grossly overshadows your ignorance in
even the most basic of video editing concepts.
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 4:38:42 PM

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

"Chuck U. Farley" <chuckufarleynot@dyslexia.com> wrote in message
news:_7C_d.38403$c72.4988@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>> >Of course, we're not done yet. In order to do what you propose, for the
> OP
>> >to edit, he will need to convert the VOB files on the DVD to mpeg (not
> too
>> >big a deal)
>> It is called 'demux' and not 'convert'.
>
> I see where this is going already, we've got a techie who wants to flaunt
> his "knowledge".
>>
>> >if he's going to try to edit in the format (which, as I've
>> >explained, is a very poor approach),
>> No it is not.
>
> Direct editing in mpeg format is, in _fact_, a poor approach.
>
>> >or, he will need to convert the VOB
>> >files to a format which does not use intermediate, calculated frames,
> e.g.
>> >dv-encoded avi, which all good editing programs will accept.
>> Please 'all good editing programs' is that vdub only?
>
> Hardly. Any true NLE fits into that description. And btw, mpeg editors are
> not NLE's in any but the most basic, rudimentary sense.
>
>> >Of course, in
>> >doing so, he introduces an additional, 2nd transcoding step.
>> Have you EVER edited a VOB or mpeg2?
>> It does not have to be re-encoded.
>
> If you're doing anything other than a very basic slice and dice, which the
> OP is _not_ interested in by the statements:
>
> "What I'd like to do is transfer all my raw footage to DVD (or CD) at the
> maximum quality level with no editing--just straight transfer."
>
> and
>
> "Then, I'd like use those DVDs or CDs as "masters" to begin the long
> process
> of editing into themed, authored DVDs."
>
>
> then there will be _substantial_ re-encoding.
>
>
>> Some mpeg editors allow you to cut 'in' a GOP too, while only re-encoding
>> that GOP.
>> In all other cases (cut at GOP) there is zero loss.
>> MS windows womble mpeg editor, try it.
>
> Notice the words "maximum quality" in the OP's above statement? If you
> think
> that mpeg encoded data is of higher "quality" than DV or uncompressed avi,
> then your technical knowledge of *nix grossly overshadows your ignorance
> in
> even the most basic of video editing concepts.
>
>

We are flaming one another over poor expression by the OP. He is very
unclear about what he considers 'masters' and the phrase 'transfer' is
ambiguous. My interpretation of editing into themed, authored DVDs did not
presume 'extensive editing' (anyway, VideoReDo is available).
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 4:47:30 PM

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

"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111153136.218c1c59112291afcca432ffd004f5bd@teranews...
> On a sunny day (Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:30:23 -0800) it happened "PTRAVEL"
> <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in <39vht6F6267l6U1@individual.net>:
>
>>Of course, we're not done yet. In order to do what you propose, for the
>>OP
>>to edit, he will need to convert the VOB files on the DVD to mpeg (not too
>>big a deal)
> It is called 'demux' and not 'convert'.

Yes, so?

>
>>if he's going to try to edit in the format (which, as I've
>>explained, is a very poor approach),
> No it is not.

Yes it is. See, I can do that too.

>
>>or, he will need to convert the VOB
>>files to a format which does not use intermediate, calculated frames, e.g.
>>dv-encoded avi, which all good editing programs will accept.
> Please 'all good editing programs' is that vdub only?

You consider vdub an editing program?

>
>>Of course, in
>>doing so, he introduces an additional, 2nd transcoding step.
> Have you EVER edited a VOB or mpeg2?

Yep.

> It does not have to be re-encoded.
> Some mpeg editors allow you to cut 'in' a GOP too, while only re-encoding
> that GOP.
> In all other cases (cut at GOP) there is zero loss.

You're talking about cuts-only which, obviously, is not what the OP has in
mind, or described in his post. Transitions, effects, corrections have to
be re-rendered. If you understand mpeg, then you'd understand this.

> MS windows womble mpeg editor, try it.

Why? I edit in Premiere, which is a real editor.

>
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 5:04:04 PM

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

Alpha is right. Please stop the flames!

Let me try to clarify what I'm looking for.
I would like to transfer my analog tapes to digital AS IS (with no
editing) and with no loss of quality (or as little as is technially
possible). I realize that 8mm consumer grade recordings are a far cry
from pro-level video in terms of image quality. Even so, I want as
little degradation as possible to occur during the A/D conversion. At
this point I neither need nor want any compression at all. These
converted recordings are what I want to use as master/source material
for eventually compiling clips, editing and creating DVDs, etc.

Is it possible to do A/D conversion with no (or little) compression? If
so, what hardware/software would be needed to do the job?

Space is not an issue. Mass storage is relatively cheap these days. I
rather like the idea of storing this raw footage on a large, dedicated
hard drive as was suggested here.

Anyway, thanks to all for your informative ideas/suggestions.

MrTobor
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 5:05:30 PM

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

"Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Na2dndLInIgDjKbfRVn-ow@giganews.com...
>
> "Susan" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:p fsk31ptbvk6i7japoo3e11uf0spkju75v@4ax.com...
>> "MrTobor" <tobor8man@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I have tons of old 8mm tapes that I'd like to bring into the digital
>>>age (specifically to DVD). What I'd like to do is transfer all my raw
>>>footage to DVD (or CD) at the maximum quality level with no
>>>editing--just straight transfer.
>>>
>>>Then, I'd like use those DVDs or CDs as "masters" to begin the long
>>>process of editing into themed, authored DVDs.
>>>
>>>I have a Mini DV camcorder but it does not have A/D passthrough
>>>conversion capability so I will need a video capture device. Also, I
>>>have not yet purchased a DVD burner.
>>>
>>>I'd like some recommendations please. I've got my eye on some of the
>>>Pinnacle Studio products for capture. Anyone have any experience with
>>>them?
>>>
>>>Also, I want maximum DVD player compatibility (i.e., play anywhere)
>>>with regard to final DVD creation. Any software/hardware
>>>recommendations would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Since you have 8mm which you want to eventually put on DVDs, you have
>> several basic options. NOTE, I would not even think about using CDs.
>>
>> You could spend a lot of time and effort to capture the 8mm through a
>> DV converter (DV or D8 camcorder, box or card) to your computer,
>> transcode to MPG2 and burn to DVD.
>>
>> You could convert direct to MPG2 on your computer and burn, or
>>
>> You could use a stand alone DVD recorder.
>>
>> Since pristine 8mm at SP is limited to about 240 lines of resolution
>> with lousy color, I would forget about DV and either capture in MPG2
>> or use a stand alone DVD recorder. However, if you plan to upgrade to
>> DV anyway, then you could go that route since you'll need the
>> capability later.
>>
>> The most important thing when using 8mm or VHS is to maintain the very
>> best analog signal possible before you digitize. I would make sure
>> the player is the best you can beg or borrow, that the heads and tapes
>> are clean, and that you run the analog signal through a time base
>> corrector and proc amp (to adjust the saturation, hue, contrast,
>> brightness and sharpness, etc.) BEFORE you digitize. Remember, the
>> image will never be better than what you capture. Garbage in, garbage
>> out. All the post processing in the world will never make up for a
>> lack of care before capturing. The number one cause of lousy picture
>> quality, OOS and dropped frames with 8mm and VHS is a bad analog
>> signal.
>>
>> If you go the MPG2 route, I would definitely not put more than two
>> hours of video on a DVD if you want to do any editing. It would be
>> best to limit yourself to one hour of video to a DVD.
>>
>> A major limitation with MPG2 is repeated and often unintended
>> recoding. What you want to do is settle on a bitrate and image size
>> that you use to do all of your capturing, editing and burning, so you
>> don't end up recoding your video several times.
>>
>> Finally, (with 8mm video) as long as you stay above 4000 Kbps you are
>> probably safe using CBR. Certainly, at 6000 or above there is
>> absolutely no need for VBR.
>>
>> No "home' burned DVD will play on all set-top DVD players. However,
>> any newer software/hardware package should be able to burn a DVD-R
>> disk that will play on most recent players. Some older players and
>> some combination VHS/DVD players do have problems with almost all
>> non-commercial DVDs. In that case, only a new DVD player will solve
>> the problem. On the other hand, some players will play anything you
>> throw at them. You just have to try and see.
>>
>> Hope this helps,
>>
>> Susan
>>
>
> Exactly, but you will never get some of this crowd to view the
> issue from the realworld circumstances of the OP, or most others
> who will be reading these posts. They will change the issue to, or
> use examples that make a case for the benefits of working with
> low compression high bandwidth DV. Even using the LD example
> is a total misdirection, some laserdisks are made with 1.5 MHz or
> even 2 MHz bandwidth for both color components. ( A typical TV
> signal is 0.5 to 0.6 MHz)
>
> For non-aerial transmission of video, the 4.2 MHz upper limit does not
> apply and luminance information goes up to 5.3 MHz (425 lines) for
> laser disks and 7.0 MHz (540 lines) for DVD. This permits the color
> signal sidebands to extend 1.5 MHz on both sides of the 3.58 MHz
> subcarrier, and even composite video can carry 120 lines of color
> resolution. Laser disk programs, which are based on composite video,
> can have the same color horizontal resolution as programs transmitted
> as S-video. Although S-video standards provide 120 lines of resolution,
> some manufacturers use a color decoder for S-video as well as composite
> video that has only 60 lines of resolution.
>
> * When recording using any consumer grade VCR; the bandwidth of
> the recorded color signal is enough for at most 32 lines. *
>
> For NTSC, the picture occupies approximately 480 of the 512 scan
> lines. For broadcasts the portion of a scan line that is visible can hold
> up
> to about 440 dots so a grid 480 high by 440 wide represents the maximum
> amount of picture detail possible.
>
> While NTSC broadcasts have about 440 maximum pixels across the
> screen (MPA) and NTSC laser disks have about 565, crisp resolution is
> probably more like 400 MPA for broadcasts and 500 for laser disk.
>
> A standard (4:3) TV set can be said to have 600 lines of horizontal
> resolution.
> However if the source material had just 330 lines of resolution you will
> see just
> 330 lines of resolution. A 16:9 aspect ratio TV that can reproduce just
> 800 dots
> across its screen would have 450 lines of horizontal resolution.
>
> For analog video (broadcasts, VHS tape, laser disks) we can think of the
> horizontal pixel count as the maximum amount of the finest details that
> can be
> put on a line and still be distinguished.
>
> To convert between pixels and lines of resolution we must apply the
> Circle Rule
> in the longer direction (horizontally); after that we always apply the
> Extended Kell
> factor vertically, and we apply the Extended Kell factor horizontally for
> digital video
> only. Therefore:
>
> To convert pixels wide to horizontal lines of resolution we divide by the
> aspect ratio
> and multiply by the Extended Kell factor (=/<0.7).
>
> To convert horizontal lines of resolution to needed pixels we multiply by
> the aspect
> ratio and divide by the Extended Kell factor.
>
> Please excuse all the tech talk, but it is somewhat necessary to show
> how some of the "Pro" posters are really comparing "Apples and Oranges"
> to make their points. They put down procedures that work with the "real
> world" analog video sources, that most of have to work with, by making
> comparisons using pristine high bandwidth DV, as their source. Those of
> use working with 4.2.0 don't have the luxury of actual 4.4.4 sources.
>
> Luck;
> Ken

Very impressive. And completely irrelevant.

8mm is low definition, yes. So it is necessary to preserve as much of that
definition as possible. Multiple transcodes to mpeg will reduce the
resolution even further. Capture to DV-25 (or something better if the OP
can afford the disk space) will preserve more of the resolution. Lossless
editing will not degrade the image further. Editing in mpeg will.

And note: Though you are right -- there is some ambiguity in the OP's post,
it is quite clear that he's not talking about cuts-only editing; does
"edited, themed DVDs" really sound like that to you?

Womble, vdub and VideoReDo are not editors in this context, and you know it.

>
>
>
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 5:17:16 PM

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

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:52:24 -0800, "Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote:

> What I'd like to do is transfer all my raw
>>>> footage to DVD (or CD) at the maximum quality level with no
>>>> editing--just straight transfer.
>>>
>>> Buy a stand alone recorder...Pioneer or Panasonic.
>>
>> Do NOT buy a stand alone recorder.
>>
>> The OP wants to archive analog video that will later be edited.
>
>He wants DVD. DVD. Brain dead?

AIUI, he wants to save the data on a DVD, but not necessarily one which could be
played directly. He's just using it as a storage medium.

Why not just save it on a big hard drive instead, then do the editing thing from
there?

--
Chris Pollard


CG Internet café, Tagum City, Philippines
http://www.cginternet.net
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 5:39:06 PM

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

"MrTobor" <tobor8man@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111183444.154103.93590@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Alpha is right. Please stop the flames!
>
> Let me try to clarify what I'm looking for.
> I would like to transfer my analog tapes to digital AS IS (with no
> editing) and with no loss of quality (or as little as is technially
> possible). I realize that 8mm consumer grade recordings are a far cry
> from pro-level video in terms of image quality. Even so, I want as
> little degradation as possible to occur during the A/D conversion. At
> this point I neither need nor want any compression at all. These
> converted recordings are what I want to use as master/source material
> for eventually compiling clips, editing and creating DVDs, etc.
>
> Is it possible to do A/D conversion with no (or little) compression? If
> so, what hardware/software would be needed to do the job?
>
> Space is not an issue. Mass storage is relatively cheap these days. I
> rather like the idea of storing this raw footage on a large, dedicated
> hard drive as was suggested here.
>
> Anyway, thanks to all for your informative ideas/suggestions.
>
> MrTobor
>

Perhaps this chart will provide guidance:

http://www.inventa.com.au/compression.htm

As you can see, true uncompressed, vs. various compression techniques are
trade-offs with a large number of variables.
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 6:35:25 PM

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

On a sunny day (Fri, 18 Mar 2005 10:10:04 -0500) it happened "Chuck U. Farley"
<chuckufarleynot@dyslexia.com> wrote in
<_7C_d.38403$c72.4988@bignews3.bellsouth.net>:

>If you're doing anything other than a very basic slice and dice, which the
>OP is _not_ interested in by the statements:
>
>"What I'd like to do is transfer all my raw footage to DVD (or CD) at the
>maximum quality level with no editing--just straight transfer."
>
>and
>
>"Then, I'd like use those DVDs or CDs as "masters" to begin the long process
>of editing into themed, authored DVDs."



>then there will be _substantial_ re-encoding.
Well I dunno, 'editing into' may be just cutting out the pieces he wants.

Of cause when you start out DV and have the diskspace, you can edit that.
When somebody asks for 'maximum quality' I look first to see his general
picture of what he wants to do.
I was not under the impression this was going to be a big issue.
Sooner or later it will have to be mpeg2, and then editing is not the problem.
If you want to make cross effects, color changes etc, then decoding MUST
happen in BOTH formats (DV and MPEG2).
If you want to just insert some effects between scenes, then that can be
done in mpeg2 too (without losses).
I dunno about your relationship with DV, but it is already a compressed
format.

So have a reality view :-)
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 9:01:28 PM

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

With respect to all involved, this thread has gotten way out of hand.
I've copied both of the original posters messages below for reference.

MrTobor, I speak for one person and one person only: myself. View my
comments through that lens.

I use what I would describe as "mainstream" NLE software - the Adobe
Production suite and occassionally Window Movie Maker 2.
I haven't had luck editing MPEG2 files with that software - understandably
because it isn't designed for it - and owing to MPEG2's "GOP" compression.
Google "GOP MPEG2 editing" if you'd like to know more about the subject.

I spent some time looking for MPEG2 editing software (we use WinXP
workstations) but gave up as what I saw didn't compare to the professional
level tools I already had. In the end, I had the source I needed
re-digitized as a DV-AVI and archived on a DVD-ROM (data) disc.

How many tapes do you have exactly? If it's "a few," leaving the files on a
hard drive may be realistic. If it's "hundreds" of tapes, this doesn't seem
practical.

Consider also transferring your exisiting tapes to miniDV (or Digital8)
tapes and archiving on those. Inexpensive, lossless and transferrable to
your computer on an as-needed basis. I have a shelf full of the Digital
tapes for lack of terrabytes of hard drive storage.

You mentioned not having a camera with analog pass through - which model is
it out of curiousity? I picked up a used D8 with analog pass-through for
about $250US and I use it almost entirely for A/D transfers (pass-through to
Firewire).

Also consider, if you're "picking and choosing" bits off tapes as opposed to
using an entire hour long chunk, you don't really need all the extra data
filling up hard drives. Those archived tapes on my shelf might contain 4
hours of actual used footage but I keep two dozen of them anyway in case I
need something slightly different from what I've used in the past.

My 2 cents.

Good luck and please let us know what you end up doing!

Chris





----- Original Message -----
From: "MrTobor" <tobor8man@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.video.desktop
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 6:19 PM
Subject: Advice on Analog to Digital Conversion


>I have tons of old 8mm tapes that I'd like to bring into the digital
> age (specifically to DVD). What I'd like to do is transfer all my raw
> footage to DVD (or CD) at the maximum quality level with no
> editing--just straight transfer.
>
> Then, I'd like use those DVDs or CDs as "masters" to begin the long
> process of editing into themed, authored DVDs.
>
> I have a Mini DV camcorder but it does not have A/D passthrough
> conversion capability so I will need a video capture device. Also, I
> have not yet purchased a DVD burner.
>
> I'd like some recommendations please. I've got my eye on some of the
> Pinnacle Studio products for capture. Anyone have any experience with
> them?
>
> Also, I want maximum DVD player compatibility (i.e., play anywhere)
> with regard to final DVD creation. Any software/hardware
> recommendations would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
>


----- Original Message -----
From: "MrTobor" <tobor8man@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.video.desktop
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: Advice on Analog to Digital Conversion


> Alpha is right. Please stop the flames!
>
> Let me try to clarify what I'm looking for.
> I would like to transfer my analog tapes to digital AS IS (with no
> editing) and with no loss of quality (or as little as is technially
> possible). I realize that 8mm consumer grade recordings are a far cry
> from pro-level video in terms of image quality. Even so, I want as
> little degradation as possible to occur during the A/D conversion. At
> this point I neither need nor want any compression at all. These
> converted recordings are what I want to use as master/source material
> for eventually compiling clips, editing and creating DVDs, etc.
>
> Is it possible to do A/D conversion with no (or little) compression? If
> so, what hardware/software would be needed to do the job?
>
> Space is not an issue. Mass storage is relatively cheap these days. I
> rather like the idea of storing this raw footage on a large, dedicated
> hard drive as was suggested here.
>
> Anyway, thanks to all for your informative ideas/suggestions.
>
> MrTobor
>
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 12:38:56 AM

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

> Alpha is right. Please stop the flames!

The OP has returned! I was waiting to see if it was worth my time to
respond. So often people ask questions such as yours and never return.

> Let me try to clarify what I'm looking for.
> I would like to transfer my analog tapes to digital AS IS (with no
> editing) and with no loss of quality (or as little as is technially
> possible). I realize that 8mm consumer grade recordings are a far cry
> from pro-level video in terms of image quality. Even so, I want as
> little degradation as possible to occur during the A/D conversion. At

Are you talking about 8mm _film_ or video tapes? Old is relative term. <g>
If your source is from video _tapes_, then it depends on the _output_
abilities of your camera... Firewire, S-Video, RCA video out, etc.


> this point I neither need nor want any compression at all. These
> converted recordings are what I want to use as master/source material
> for eventually compiling clips, editing and creating DVDs, etc.

If you can capture the source files in uncompressed avi format, that will
yield the best "quality" from your original source, and the best basis for
editing. DV format would be the next choice with mpg compression next on the
list.

> Is it possible to do A/D conversion with no (or little) compression? If
> so, what hardware/software would be needed to do the job?

I'm not sure of the specifcs of your camera but the answer remains the
same... uncompressed avi, DV and mpg.

> Space is not an issue. Mass storage is relatively cheap these days. I
> rather like the idea of storing this raw footage on a large, dedicated
> hard drive as was suggested here.

Then lossless avi compression via the HuffYuv codec to your hard drive is
the optimal, at least for _me_, way to capture video. As with all things in
life, ymmv.

> Anyway, thanks to all for your informative ideas/suggestions.

Isn't Usenet wonderful? <g>
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 1:45:50 AM

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

In article <3a11lfF65fr06U1@individual.net>,
"PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> "Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:Na2dndLInIgDjKbfRVn-ow@giganews.com...
>>
>> "Susan" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
>> news:p fsk31ptbvk6i7japoo3e11uf0spkju75v@4ax.com...
>>> "MrTobor" <tobor8man@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I have tons of old 8mm tapes that I'd like to bring into the digital
>>>>age (specifically to DVD). What I'd like to do is transfer all my raw
>>>>footage to DVD (or CD) at the maximum quality level with no
>>>>editing--just straight transfer.
>>>>
>>>>Then, I'd like use those DVDs or CDs as "masters" to begin the long
>>>>process of editing into themed, authored DVDs.
>>>>
>>>>I have a Mini DV camcorder but it does not have A/D passthrough
>>>>conversion capability so I will need a video capture device. Also, I
>>>>have not yet purchased a DVD burner.
>>>>
>>>>I'd like some recommendations please. I've got my eye on some of the
>>>>Pinnacle Studio products for capture. Anyone have any experience with
>>>>them?
>>>>
>>>>Also, I want maximum DVD player compatibility (i.e., play anywhere)
>>>>with regard to final DVD creation. Any software/hardware
>>>>recommendations would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Since you have 8mm which you want to eventually put on DVDs, you have
>>> several basic options. NOTE, I would not even think about using CDs.
>>>
>>> You could spend a lot of time and effort to capture the 8mm through a
>>> DV converter (DV or D8 camcorder, box or card) to your computer,
>>> transcode to MPG2 and burn to DVD.
>>>
>>> You could convert direct to MPG2 on your computer and burn, or
>>>
>>> You could use a stand alone DVD recorder.
>>>
>>> Since pristine 8mm at SP is limited to about 240 lines of resolution
>>> with lousy color, I would forget about DV and either capture in MPG2
>>> or use a stand alone DVD recorder. However, if you plan to upgrade to
>>> DV anyway, then you could go that route since you'll need the
>>> capability later.
>>>
>>> The most important thing when using 8mm or VHS is to maintain the very
>>> best analog signal possible before you digitize. I would make sure
>>> the player is the best you can beg or borrow, that the heads and tapes
>>> are clean, and that you run the analog signal through a time base
>>> corrector and proc amp (to adjust the saturation, hue, contrast,
>>> brightness and sharpness, etc.) BEFORE you digitize. Remember, the
>>> image will never be better than what you capture. Garbage in, garbage
>>> out. All the post processing in the world will never make up for a
>>> lack of care before capturing. The number one cause of lousy picture
>>> quality, OOS and dropped frames with 8mm and VHS is a bad analog
>>> signal.
>>>
>>> If you go the MPG2 route, I would definitely not put more than two
>>> hours of video on a DVD if you want to do any editing. It would be
>>> best to limit yourself to one hour of video to a DVD.
>>>
>>> A major limitation with MPG2 is repeated and often unintended
>>> recoding. What you want to do is settle on a bitrate and image size
>>> that you use to do all of your capturing, editing and burning, so you
>>> don't end up recoding your video several times.
>>>
>>> Finally, (with 8mm video) as long as you stay above 4000 Kbps you are
>>> probably safe using CBR. Certainly, at 6000 or above there is
>>> absolutely no need for VBR.
>>>
>>> No "home' burned DVD will play on all set-top DVD players. However,
>>> any newer software/hardware package should be able to burn a DVD-R
>>> disk that will play on most recent players. Some older players and
>>> some combination VHS/DVD players do have problems with almost all
>>> non-commercial DVDs. In that case, only a new DVD player will solve
>>> the problem. On the other hand, some players will play anything you
>>> throw at them. You just have to try and see.
>>>
>>> Hope this helps,
>>>
>>> Susan
>>>
>>
>> Exactly, but you will never get some of this crowd to view the
>> issue from the realworld circumstances of the OP, or most others
>> who will be reading these posts. They will change the issue to, or
>> use examples that make a case for the benefits of working with
>> low compression high bandwidth DV. Even using the LD example
>> is a total misdirection, some laserdisks are made with 1.5 MHz or
>> even 2 MHz bandwidth for both color components. ( A typical TV
>> signal is 0.5 to 0.6 MHz)
>>
>> For non-aerial transmission of video, the 4.2 MHz upper limit does not
>> apply and luminance information goes up to 5.3 MHz (425 lines) for
>> laser disks and 7.0 MHz (540 lines) for DVD. This permits the color
>> signal sidebands to extend 1.5 MHz on both sides of the 3.58 MHz
>> subcarrier, and even composite video can carry 120 lines of color
>> resolution. Laser disk programs, which are based on composite video,
>> can have the same color horizontal resolution as programs transmitted
>> as S-video. Although S-video standards provide 120 lines of resolution,
>> some manufacturers use a color decoder for S-video as well as composite
>> video that has only 60 lines of resolution.
>>
>> * When recording using any consumer grade VCR; the bandwidth of
>> the recorded color signal is enough for at most 32 lines. *
>>
>> For NTSC, the picture occupies approximately 480 of the 512 scan
>> lines. For broadcasts the portion of a scan line that is visible can hold
>> up
>> to about 440 dots so a grid 480 high by 440 wide represents the maximum
>> amount of picture detail possible.
>>
>> While NTSC broadcasts have about 440 maximum pixels across the
>> screen (MPA) and NTSC laser disks have about 565, crisp resolution is
>> probably more like 400 MPA for broadcasts and 500 for laser disk.
>>
>> A standard (4:3) TV set can be said to have 600 lines of horizontal
>> resolution.
>> However if the source material had just 330 lines of resolution you will
>> see just
>> 330 lines of resolution. A 16:9 aspect ratio TV that can reproduce just
>> 800 dots
>> across its screen would have 450 lines of horizontal resolution.
>>
>> For analog video (broadcasts, VHS tape, laser disks) we can think of the
>> horizontal pixel count as the maximum amount of the finest details that
>> can be
>> put on a line and still be distinguished.
>>
>> To convert between pixels and lines of resolution we must apply the
>> Circle Rule
>> in the longer direction (horizontally); after that we always apply the
>> Extended Kell
>> factor vertically, and we apply the Extended Kell factor horizontally for
>> digital video
>> only. Therefore:
>>
>> To convert pixels wide to horizontal lines of resolution we divide by the
>> aspect ratio
>> and multiply by the Extended Kell factor (=/<0.7).
>>
>> To convert horizontal lines of resolution to needed pixels we multiply by
>> the aspect
>> ratio and divide by the Extended Kell factor.
>>
>> Please excuse all the tech talk, but it is somewhat necessary to show
>> how some of the "Pro" posters are really comparing "Apples and Oranges"
>> to make their points. They put down procedures that work with the "real
>> world" analog video sources, that most of have to work with, by making
>> comparisons using pristine high bandwidth DV, as their source. Those of
>> use working with 4.2.0 don't have the luxury of actual 4.4.4 sources.
>>
>> Luck;
>> Ken
>
> Very impressive. And completely irrelevant.
>
> 8mm is low definition, yes. So it is necessary to preserve as much of that
> definition as possible. Multiple transcodes to mpeg will reduce the
> resolution even further. Capture to DV-25 (or something better if the OP
> can afford the disk space) will preserve more of the resolution. Lossless
> editing will not degrade the image further. Editing in mpeg will.
>
All of the various issues WRT bandwidth (other than not further limiting
it) aren't important. The big issue is NOISE and the trouble that
MPEG2 and DV25 (less so) have with noise. The chroma bandwidth issue
was mentioned (by me) only to clarify that the sampling mismatch between
DV25 and DVD MPEG2 are of little worry, because the combination of the
mismatch only limited the chroma bandwidth to 1.5MHz (more than enough
for any consumer analog video source.)

Luma bandwidth of DV vs. DVD MPEG2 at full 720Hx480V are essentially
the same, but each format is very different in the amount of
detail that they can resolve. Detail is NOT the same as bandwidth
in the DCT domain with coefficient truncation. You can actually remove
detail (or not resolve it), while still looking like having a full
500TVL of apparent H resolution!!!

The evil occurs when applying a noisy source to a compressor that
essentially truncates DCT coefficients, and secondary distortions
occur to the signal. These secondary distortions can sometimes
look worse than a normal noisy analog video signal. When 'truncating'
or 'rolling off' Fourier domain information, that tends to soften
the image (well, not exactly but close enough.) This fourier rolloff
is equivalent to traditional bandwidth rolloff. When 'truncating'
or 'rolling off' in the DCT domain, the effects are not intuitive.
In this case, the number of high frequency components can actually
increase, and the amount of aliasing can increase due to the creation
of HF components due to the *nonlinearity* from truncating in the
DCT domain. (Truncating or rolloff in the fourier domain is a linear
process, but DCT rolloffs make nonlinear effects.)

When mixing the noise with the DCT truncation effects, it makes the
signal look very ugly (think about mixing stairstepping, moire and
noise all together.) So, there is the NEED to increase the amount of
noise reduction, which also adds its own 'artifacts.'

The reason why MPEG2 can produce 'nice' images with low bps, it is due
to taking advantage of lots of redundancy in the signal (temporal and
spatial.) Noise screws up almost all of the assumptions for MPEG2.

Noise is also NOT friendly to DV25, except that DV25 has more bps
available than DVD MPEG2, and can deal with alot more of the randomness
in the signal.

One can get by with less noise reduction before DV25 encoding, and alot
less risk to adding NR artifacts. Then, further NON CAUSAL and more cpu
intensive non-realtime NR can be done between the DV25 and MPEG2 encodings.

DV25 can deal with significantly more randomness in the signal, just like
DV50 can deal with LOTS more randomness. Where DV50 reproduces noise much
more accurately than DV25, then DV25 reproduces random noise much more
accurately than MPEG2 at DVD rates. This more accurate reproduction of
randomness is roughly equivalent to the reproduction of video detail.

For non-techies: one reason why freq response measurements are often
not given anymore (or necessary) is that almost all of the digital video
formats that sample at 720x480 (or 720x576) have approx the same resolution
as measured by a resolution chart. The resolution charts are VERY poor
examples of material for detail rendition capability. For measuring the
detail capability of a format, a more complex, irregular pattern would need
to be used, and in the case of MPEG, a changing pattern would be desirable.

You'd likely notice that for a complex changing pattern, D1 or D5 would
provide high fidelity rendition. Then, DigiBeta would provide slightly
less fidelity, FAIRLY closely followed by DV50. Then, significantly
worse than that (for a truly complex signal), then DV25 would follow.
Much worse yet (again, for a truly complex signal), MPEG2 at DVD rates
would bring up the rear. With that random, digital signal, BetaSP would
probably come close to DV50 in performance, but for unchanging signals
or slightly more regular signals, then DV25 would be better than BetaSP.
(AFAIR, DV does have very limited -- interfield -- dependent compression,
so movement does SLIGHTLY affect DV, but not nearly as much as DVD.)

Bottom line wrt 8mm source: NOISE is the big boogey man, not bandwidth
or detail. Detail rendition becomes a derived effect of the noise
from the original material.

Truly, it is possible that the original poster would be happy with the
set top DVD results -- but answering the question completely might
mean that the set top DVD recorder isn't technically the 'best' solution
for image quality. Best isn't often necessary, but satisfactory is
definitely important. Only the original poster can judge for him/her
self.

John
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 1:45:51 AM

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

"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
news:D 1flmu$31dq$1@news.iquest.net...
..
>
> Bottom line wrt 8mm source: NOISE is the big boogey man, not bandwidth
> or detail. Detail rendition becomes a derived effect of the noise
> from the original material.
>
> Truly, it is possible that the original poster would be happy with the
> set top DVD results -- but answering the question completely might
> mean that the set top DVD recorder isn't technically the 'best' solution
> for image quality. Best isn't often necessary, but satisfactory is
> definitely important. Only the original poster can judge for him/her
> self.
>
> John

I won't get into the various DCT/ DST issues, or all the various
improvements in digital compressive encoding; as they have little
to do with your claim that noise is a problem for MPEG but a
lessor problem for other DV.

What I find even more intriguing is your claim that TBC and the
filtering that is applied to the analog signal prior to it being digitized,
introduces artifacts. This is absolutely counter to my experience, and
I can think of no way for such an outcome.

It is possible to adjust an analog filter to create video that is
unbalanced in some fashion and therefor "worse" than the original
signal, but this is not noise. In fact reducing any noise in the analog
signal is a most important step in the process. Any MPEG capture
card or DVD Recorder will include a number of such circuits, some
have TBC circuitry as well. In fact it would be somewhat foolish to
try and capture an analog signal from a tape source, without
compensating filters and a TBC adds a much needed correction.
None of this NR will add "artifacts" to anyone's video.

If I were to take your post as having any meaning, I would guess
that the artifact you are referring to, is the Blocking associated with
DCT transcoders and very low bitrates. This has nothing to do with
noise, or Noise Reduction. It would suggest that, If the OP were to
go the MPEG route, he should follow Susan's advise and use the
highest bitrate practical.

As it is, I also think that the OP should store his "Master" video
in the least compressed format that his storage budget will allow.
Digital tape would be my choice, were I in his position. This has
nothing to do with any supposed benefit in image quality from
putting the H8 analog signal into the DV format, it will still only be
of the quality of the original. But there are currently more editing
options for less compressed video, although that is changing with
time.

Luck;
Ken
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 1:47:48 AM

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

On a sunny day (18 Mar 2005 14:04:04 -0800) it happened "MrTobor"
<tobor8man@hotmail.com> wrote in
<1111183444.154103.93590@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:

>Alpha is right. Please stop the flames!
>
>Let me try to clarify what I'm looking for.
>I would like to transfer my analog tapes to digital AS IS (with no
>editing) and with no loss of quality (or as little as is technially
>possible). I realize that 8mm consumer grade recordings are a far cry
>from pro-level video in terms of image quality. Even so, I want as
>little degradation as possible to occur during the A/D conversion. At
>this point I neither need nor want any compression at all. These
>converted recordings are what I want to use as master/source material
>for eventually compiling clips, editing and creating DVDs, etc.
>
>Is it possible to do A/D conversion with no (or little) compression? If
>so, what hardware/software would be needed to do the job?
You have a problem here, as you will, at some point, have to specify a quality.
Of cause you can sample the analog output at 9 x fc, and digitize it, and if it
happens to have s-video (I dunno) digitize that too.
But you have to filter before the AD, and anything more then the bandwidth that
really carries info will only add noise.
My understanding from your first post is that you only have analog video out.

So, first 'reduction' will be you have to select a bandwidth.
You talk AD conversion, but you are not a designer.
So you will have to use an existing product.
You have infinite dollars to spend (lets say). Then I like the idea of a time
base corrector, maybe it has component out too, maybe RGB, dunno.
After all the playback is from a mechanical rotating head with all timing issues
that brings.
You could stick the analog in any TV card, and that will allow you to select
a codec in MS windows, or record uncompressed.
For example I have an (now rather old) Asus 7100 combo the luxe, and you can do
these things.
There exists better ones now.
Or you could use something like hauppauge pvr150 and go mpeg2.
In spite of 'perfect quality syndrome' I think it will make little difference,
perhaps be even better, and for sure use less computer resources.
Others will disagree.
As for the editing.... that one conversion step or 2, probably still will be a
lot better what is transmitted here now on TV on some channels mpeg2 digital
bandwidth limited with wrong setup, wrong shading 50% of white, what not.
So even in the worst case you could claim it is a professional measure
against copying ;-)
You could also use both methods...
if 'Money is no issue',
then report back what was (or you liked) the best :-)
Even in the case of digitizing to YUV, the decoder fro the analog wil for the
largest part set the quality, and it will be a digita lchip likely, what sort
of filters it uses, combfilter in color, we dunno.
A bit of a reality check is in place.
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 12:34:21 PM

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

On 18 Mar 2005 14:04:04 -0800, "MrTobor" <tobor8man@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Alpha is right. Please stop the flames!
>
>Let me try to clarify what I'm looking for.
>I would like to transfer my analog tapes to digital AS IS (with no
>editing) and with no loss of quality (or as little as is technially
>possible). I realize that 8mm consumer grade recordings are a far cry
>from pro-level video in terms of image quality. Even so, I want as
>little degradation as possible to occur during the A/D conversion. At
>this point I neither need nor want any compression at all. These
>converted recordings are what I want to use as master/source material
>for eventually compiling clips, editing and creating DVDs, etc.

Is it Video8 or Hi8? Hi8 obviously has much higher quality, which
means a better data rate/capture quality has a much better shot at
actually improving the final results.

>Is it possible to do A/D conversion with no (or little) compression? If
>so, what hardware/software would be needed to do the job?

HuffyYUV with any analog capture device which supports mjpeg codecs.
You'll need to ask someone else which device is best -- I've gone over
to pure DV work. Huffy is a lossless codec. At DV resolution, you're
talking something like 30 gigs an hour. There are true uncompressed
formats, but they'd be overkill in both hardware and software for a
consumer tape format source.

DV is 13 gigs per hour. One reason I went with DV is that my
Digital8 camcorder will play the Hi8, and apply a TBC to stablilize
the video playback. Most Hi8, and no Video8 I know of, have no TBCs
or anything else to improve the quality of playback from tape. DV is
also very well supported for editing. It is a compromise, but it
isn't a bad one and the end result on MPEG2 DVD can be (from Hi8)
almost as good as from a DV camcorder.

Since you can't do better than the quality of the tape source,
maximizing that is the first step in high quality analog capture. But
whether you want to spend more money for an excellent VCR is another
matter.

>Space is not an issue. Mass storage is relatively cheap these days. I
>rather like the idea of storing this raw footage on a large, dedicated
>hard drive as was suggested here.

Hard drives are more expensive than transfer to DVDROM. But it is
so much more convenient, especially when you're talking about 60 gig
files. Split onto a dozen discs is much more work to mess around with
for editing, and for capture. You can just capture everything
straight to the hard drives, then put them away until later.



>Anyway, thanks to all for your informative ideas/suggestions.
>
>MrTobor

--
*-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/&gt;
*Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/&gt;
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 1:36:45 PM

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

"Jeffery S. Jones" <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote in message
news:gtgo315rdb5gm6vm368qmo522kn1j9dtnt@4ax.com...
> On 18 Mar 2005 14:04:04 -0800, "MrTobor" <tobor8man@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Alpha is right. Please stop the flames!
>>
>>Let me try to clarify what I'm looking for.
>>I would like to transfer my analog tapes to digital AS IS (with no
>>editing) and with no loss of quality (or as little as is technially
>>possible). I realize that 8mm consumer grade recordings are a far cry
>>from pro-level video in terms of image quality. Even so, I want as
>>little degradation as possible to occur during the A/D conversion. At
>>this point I neither need nor want any compression at all. These
>>converted recordings are what I want to use as master/source material
>>for eventually compiling clips, editing and creating DVDs, etc.
>
> Is it Video8 or Hi8? Hi8 obviously has much higher quality, which
> means a better data rate/capture quality has a much better shot at
> actually improving the final results.
>
>>Is it possible to do A/D conversion with no (or little) compression? If
>>so, what hardware/software would be needed to do the job?
>
> HuffyYUV with any analog capture device which supports mjpeg codecs.
> You'll need to ask someone else which device is best -- I've gone over
> to pure DV work. Huffy is a lossless codec. At DV resolution, you're
> talking something like 30 gigs an hour. There are true uncompressed
> formats, but they'd be overkill in both hardware and software for a
> consumer tape format source.
>
> DV is 13 gigs per hour. One reason I went with DV is that my
> Digital8 camcorder will play the Hi8, and apply a TBC to stablilize
> the video playback. Most Hi8, and no Video8 I know of, have no TBCs
> or anything else to improve the quality of playback from tape. DV is
> also very well supported for editing. It is a compromise, but it
> isn't a bad one and the end result on MPEG2 DVD can be (from Hi8)
> almost as good as from a DV camcorder.
>
> Since you can't do better than the quality of the tape source,
> maximizing that is the first step in high quality analog capture. But
> whether you want to spend more money for an excellent VCR is another
> matter.
>
>>Space is not an issue. Mass storage is relatively cheap these days. I
>>rather like the idea of storing this raw footage on a large, dedicated
>>hard drive as was suggested here.
>
> Hard drives are more expensive than transfer to DVDROM. But it is
> so much more convenient, especially when you're talking about 60 gig
> files. Split onto a dozen discs is much more work to mess around with
> for editing, and for capture. You can just capture everything
> straight to the hard drives, then put them away until later.
>
>
>
>>Anyway, thanks to all for your informative ideas/suggestions.
>>
>>MrTobor
>
> --
> *-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
> ** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/&gt;
> *Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/&gt;

Bravo, a very good, and to the point Post.

Luck;
Ken
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 2:40:28 PM

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

C.J.Patten wrote:
> How many tapes do you have exactly? If it's "a few," leaving the
files on a
> hard drive may be realistic. If it's "hundreds" of tapes, this
doesn't seem
> practical.
>
> You mentioned not having a camera with analog pass through - which
model is
> it out of curiousity? I picked up a used D8 with analog pass-through
for
> about $250US and I use it almost entirely for A/D transfers
(pass-through to
> Firewire).

1. I have roughly 12 to 15 hrs of material on analog 8mm tapes recorder
on a Ricoh R-17C. It has only standard (RCA) video/audio out
connections.

2. As for my current MiniDV camcorder, I opted for compactness and
bought a JVC GR-DX77U. It only has video out connections.

Tobor
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 2:54:13 PM

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

> 2. As for my current MiniDV camcorder, I opted for compactness and
> bought a JVC GR-DX77U. It only has video out connections.
>
> Tobor

Correction!

Upon further review of my manual, I see that the last statement (above)
is not true! The camcorder can in fact receive video input. Therefore,
C.J.'s suggestion about recording to DV tape might be an option.

Tobor
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 7:19:11 PM

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

Howdy again Mr.T. ;) 

I did a bit of looking online and I also noticed several references to the
JVC DX77 having Analog pass through.
My Sony has only a single set of ports but they double as input AND output -
prob' the same on yours.

*********

Let's look on the high side and say "15 hours" of material.
Also: what format EXACTLY are the tapes? Are these straight "8mm video" or
"Hi-8?"
As another poster mentioned, there's a big difference in spatial resolution
between those two formats though no difference in storage requirements if
you stick with DV25 format. (25Mbit/sec DV-AVI or miniDV tape)

Now that we've confirmed your camera has the analog ins, if you aren't using
the footage right away, the digital tape option seems like a viable one.

Locally, I can buy a miniDV tape for $10 or less. Assuming that's the best
you can do, you're talking $150 in tapes to archive the footage you've got.

I'm seeing hard drives in the 200GB range (which you'll need as a minimum if
you want all your tapes in DV-AVI format, assuming 13GB/hour), for about
$200 (internal) to $400 (externals).

Tape's a bit cheaper - significantly cheaper if you get a better deal on
tapes or if you pare down the footage that you decide to keep.

Good luck and let us know what you end up doing!

C.



"MrTobor" <tobor8man@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111261227.992366.271170@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

> 1. I have roughly 12 to 15 hrs of material on analog 8mm tapes recorder
> on a Ricoh R-17C. It has only standard (RCA) video/audio out
> connections.
>
> 2. As for my current MiniDV camcorder, I opted for compactness and
> bought a JVC GR-DX77U. It only has video out connections.
>
> Tobor
>
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 11:33:55 PM

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

In article <QLWdnY-dw9L246bfRVn-2w@giganews.com>,
"Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
> "John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
> news:D 1flmu$31dq$1@news.iquest.net...
> .
>>
>> Bottom line wrt 8mm source: NOISE is the big boogey man, not bandwidth
>> or detail. Detail rendition becomes a derived effect of the noise
>> from the original material.
>>
>> Truly, it is possible that the original poster would be happy with the
>> set top DVD results -- but answering the question completely might
>> mean that the set top DVD recorder isn't technically the 'best' solution
>> for image quality. Best isn't often necessary, but satisfactory is
>> definitely important. Only the original poster can judge for him/her
>> self.
>>
>> John
>
> I won't get into the various DCT/ DST issues, or all the various
> improvements in digital compressive encoding; as they have little
> to do with your claim that noise is a problem for MPEG but a
> lessor problem for other DV.
>
Actually, the truncation of the DCTs do create artifacts when
added together with the noise. The spectrum will tend to be
expanded and aliasing will ensue. This will create a compounded
increase in noise. Don't bother with DST, because that is mostly
useful for a less correlated signal (or when using lapped transforms,
where the differences between DCT and DST are partially hidden.)

Why did you bring up DST, when that is essentially not very useful
or utilized by typical video compression algorithms... Do you have
ANY idea as to the mathematical basis of DCT vs. DST vs. other
schemes? (The DST MIGHT be useful in compression of chroma information
relative to luma, but AT BEST, it is a toss-up.)


>
> What I find even more intriguing is your claim that TBC and the
> filtering that is applied to the analog signal prior to it being digitized,
> introduces artifacts.
>
Read carefully what I wrote -- I didn't say that filtering before digitization
introduces artifacts... If you are going to dispute my statements, it
would be good if you accurately do so.

Do you understand the difference between digitization and digital compression?

..
> This is absolutely counter to my experience, and
> I can think of no way for such an outcome.
>
If you dispute my statements, please be technically accurate.

However, if you do not process the signal before encoding into the
compressed formats, you'll tend to get alot of negative effects from
interference between the compression algorithms and the noise in the
signal.

If you incompetently process the signal, you can worsen it, or produce
suboptimal results. I have seen poorly designed noise reduction and
have had BY FAR the best results from offline noise reduction algorithms.

John
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 11:33:56 PM

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

"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
news:D 1i2bj$o8o$1@news.iquest.net...
> In article <QLWdnY-dw9L246bfRVn-2w@giganews.com>,
> "Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>
>> "John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
>> news:D 1flmu$31dq$1@news.iquest.net...
>> .
>>>
>>> Bottom line wrt 8mm source: NOISE is the big boogey man, not bandwidth
>>> or detail. Detail rendition becomes a derived effect of the noise
>>> from the original material.
>>>
>>> Truly, it is possible that the original poster would be happy with the
>>> set top DVD results -- but answering the question completely might
>>> mean that the set top DVD recorder isn't technically the 'best' solution
>>> for image quality. Best isn't often necessary, but satisfactory is
>>> definitely important. Only the original poster can judge for him/her
>>> self.
>>>
>>> John
>>
>> I won't get into the various DCT/ DST issues, or all the various
>> improvements in digital compressive encoding; as they have little
>> to do with your claim that noise is a problem for MPEG but a
>> lessor problem for other DV.
>>
> Actually, the truncation of the DCTs do create artifacts when
> added together with the noise.

Ok; I'll bite just why do you think that the DCT process, which
is integral to MPEG compression, will be abnormally interrupted?
What could you possibly be feeding it, to cause such a response?

>The spectrum will tend to be
> expanded and aliasing will ensue. This will create a compounded
> increase in noise. Don't bother with DST, because that is mostly
> useful for a less correlated signal (or when using lapped transforms,
> where the differences between DCT and DST are partially hidden.)
>
> Why did you bring up DST, when that is essentially not very useful
> or utilized by typical video compression algorithms... Do you have
> ANY idea as to the mathematical basis of DCT vs. DST vs. other
> schemes? (The DST MIGHT be useful in compression of chroma information
> relative to luma, but AT BEST, it is a toss-up.)
>
>
>>
>> What I find even more intriguing is your claim that TBC and the
>> filtering that is applied to the analog signal prior to it being
>> digitized,
>> introduces artifacts.
>>
> Read carefully what I wrote -- I didn't say that filtering before
> digitization
> introduces artifacts... If you are going to dispute my statements, it
> would be good if you accurately do so.
>
> Do you understand the difference between digitization and digital
> compression?
>

Most definitely, and the removal of "noise" is best accomplished
prior to digitization. In fact with the proper care before and during
the digitization, the resulting digitized video information will be almost
free of any random noise. Check out the spec. on the Philips
SAA7114H on the Philips support site.


> If you dispute my statements, please be technically accurate.
>
> However, if you do not process the signal before encoding into the
> compressed formats, you'll tend to get alot of negative effects from
> interference between the compression algorithms and the noise in the
> signal.
>

So now post digitization, pre-compression "processing" is a good
thing? Don't you get dizzy, running in circles? If you didn't mean that
NR applied prior to digitization was causing these artifacts, and now
that some NR must be applied prior to compression; just when is this
artifact inducing NR applied?

> If you incompetently process the signal, you can worsen it, or produce
> suboptimal results.

All the more reason to go with an integrated and optimized hardware
approach.

>I have seen poorly designed noise reduction and
> have had BY FAR the best results from offline noise reduction algorithms.
>

As I've said the most effective NR (as well as color correction) is
applied inline prior to digitization. And it in no way introduces any
"artifacts".

Luck;
Ken
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 9:03:50 AM

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

In article <ZdWdnZAlTOCZRaHfRVn-gg@giganews.com>,
"Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
> "John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
> news:D 1i2bj$o8o$1@news.iquest.net...
>> In article <QLWdnY-dw9L246bfRVn-2w@giganews.com>,
>> "Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>
>>> "John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
>>> news:D 1flmu$31dq$1@news.iquest.net...
>>> .
>>>>
>>>> Bottom line wrt 8mm source: NOISE is the big boogey man, not bandwidth
>>>> or detail. Detail rendition becomes a derived effect of the noise
>>>> from the original material.
>>>>
>>>> Truly, it is possible that the original poster would be happy with the
>>>> set top DVD results -- but answering the question completely might
>>>> mean that the set top DVD recorder isn't technically the 'best' solution
>>>> for image quality. Best isn't often necessary, but satisfactory is
>>>> definitely important. Only the original poster can judge for him/her
>>>> self.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>
>>> I won't get into the various DCT/ DST issues, or all the various
>>> improvements in digital compressive encoding; as they have little
>>> to do with your claim that noise is a problem for MPEG but a
>>> lessor problem for other DV.
>>>
>> Actually, the truncation of the DCTs do create artifacts when
>> added together with the noise.
>
> Ok; I'll bite just why do you think that the DCT process, which
> is integral to MPEG compression, will be abnormally interrupted?
>
Do you understand the mathematical process used in the reduction of
data in the DCT information? It uses truncation (a kind of roundoff.)
It is a kind of 'chopping off' of information that produces nonlinear
transfer function effects. This produces spectral content that is
outside of the range that the sampling rate can support. This produces
an ugly mixture of aliasing and noise... (Please refer to the DV25
and/or MPEG2 video specs for seeing how this nonlinear processing
is implemented.) If you aren't used to the mathematics, you might
not understand that the modification of the DCT coefficients is a nonlinear
process which causes out-of-band spectral content.

Do you realize that the 'stairstepping' that DV25 (and MPEG2) are well
known to produce is a result of spectral content that is outside of the
range that the sampling rate can represent? This out of band frequency
content happens because of the nonlinear processing in the steps
that reduce the amount of data.

>
> What could you possibly be feeding it, to cause such a response?
>
The normal processing (data size reduction) as an important part of
DV25 and MPEG2 compression chops and rounds the numerical data that
represents the DCT coefficients. Again, this makes nonlinear effects.


>
> Most definitely, and the removal of "noise" is best accomplished
> prior to digitization.
>
Most importantly, the removal of 'noise' is best accomplished before
compression.


>
> In fact with the proper care before and during
> the digitization, the resulting digitized video information will be almost
> free of any random noise. Check out the spec. on the Philips
> SAA7114H on the Philips support site.
>
The BEST place to do large scale processing of the video is in the
digital domain AFTER digitization but before compression. As long as
you have enough bit resolution (e.g. 8-10bits) of the samples, and enough
bit resolution for the calculations (a few more bits), and you have
bandlimited the data, then the digital domain gives LOTS more flexbility.
(Again, read carefully, once you have bandlimited the data and having
enough resolution, then the digital domain gives more flexibility.)

If the Philips chip that you speak of is the NTSC/PAL/SECAM decoder, that
chip, even though it is 'flexible', it is limited in the kind of processing
that it can do, and it actually does ALOT Of processing in the sampled
domain. The results of such a chip are NOT NOISE FREE. My standards of
video noise reduction tend to result in low noise in both both high
frequency and low frequency regions. Too often, analog noise reduction
and simplistic filter schemes don't reduce low frequency noise adequately,
and you end up with problems of slightly unstable looking colors (large
red fields aren't solid.) Good digital processing (necessarily 3D)
can reduce LF video noise (LF in the spatial sense.)

For even more processing, non-causal filters (look it up), allow for
more artifact free noise reduction.

I challenge you to do a good 3D (actually more dimensions) noise reduction
in analog before any digital processing. Analog processing is generally
quite limited due to the difficulty of certain kinds of mathematical
operations and practical problems with memory.

John
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 9:03:51 AM

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

"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
news:D 1j3o6$14gt$1@news.iquest.net...
> In article <ZdWdnZAlTOCZRaHfRVn-gg@giganews.com>,
> "Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>
>> "John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
>> news:D 1i2bj$o8o$1@news.iquest.net...
>>> In article <QLWdnY-dw9L246bfRVn-2w@giganews.com>,
>>> "Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>> "John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:D 1flmu$31dq$1@news.iquest.net...
>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>> Bottom line wrt 8mm source: NOISE is the big boogey man, not bandwidth
>>>>> or detail. Detail rendition becomes a derived effect of the noise
>>>>> from the original material.

>>> Actually, the truncation of the DCTs do create artifacts when
>>> added together with the noise.
>>
>> Ok; I'll bite just why do you think that the DCT process, which
>> is integral to MPEG compression, will be abnormally interrupted?
>>
> Do you understand the mathematical process used in the reduction of
> data in the DCT information? It uses truncation (a kind of roundoff.)
> It is a kind of 'chopping off' of information that produces nonlinear
> transfer function effects. This produces spectral content that is
> outside of the range that the sampling rate can support. This produces
> an ugly mixture of aliasing and noise... (Please refer to the DV25
> and/or MPEG2 video specs for seeing how this nonlinear processing
> is implemented.) If you aren't used to the mathematics, you might
> not understand that the modification of the DCT coefficients is a
> nonlinear
> process which causes out-of-band spectral content.
>
> Do you realize that the 'stairstepping' that DV25 (and MPEG2) are well
> known to produce is a result of spectral content that is outside of the
> range that the sampling rate can represent? This out of band frequency
> content happens because of the nonlinear processing in the steps
> that reduce the amount of data.
>
>>
>> What could you possibly be feeding it, to cause such a response?
>>
> The normal processing (data size reduction) as an important part of
> DV25 and MPEG2 compression chops and rounds the numerical data that
> represents the DCT coefficients. Again, this makes nonlinear effects.
>
>

There is nothing abnormal, unexpected or uncompensated in
the "normal processing" that generates such effects. What you
describe as a problem, is normal, and to the extent possible,
compensated for. To the extent that this could be an issue, it
would apply to all compressed video.


>>
>> Most definitely, and the removal of "noise" is best accomplished
>> prior to digitization.
>>
> Most importantly, the removal of 'noise' is best accomplished before
> compression.
>
>
>>
>> In fact with the proper care before and during
>> the digitization, the resulting digitized video information will be
>> almost
>> free of any random noise. Check out the spec. on the Philips
>> SAA7114H on the Philips support site.
>>
> The BEST place to do large scale processing of the video is in the
> digital domain AFTER digitization but before compression. As long as
> you have enough bit resolution (e.g. 8-10bits) of the samples, and enough
> bit resolution for the calculations (a few more bits), and you have
> bandlimited the data, then the digital domain gives LOTS more flexbility.
> (Again, read carefully, once you have bandlimited the data and having
> enough resolution, then the digital domain gives more flexibility.)
>

In other words after the NR.

> If the Philips chip that you speak of is the NTSC/PAL/SECAM decoder, that
> chip, even though it is 'flexible', it is limited in the kind of
> processing
> that it can do, and it actually does ALOT Of processing in the sampled
> domain. The results of such a chip are NOT NOISE FREE.

If you looked at the numbers you should have noticed that any
noise is well below the threshold required to change the digital
data stream in any way. True any noise that was in the source
analog video, and not completely removed would have also
been digitized as discreet non random data, but that can be
addressed prior to or during compression.


> My standards of
> video noise reduction tend to result in low noise in both both high
> frequency and low frequency regions. Too often, analog noise reduction
> and simplistic filter schemes don't reduce low frequency noise adequately,
> and you end up with problems of slightly unstable looking colors (large
> red fields aren't solid.) Good digital processing (necessarily 3D)
> can reduce LF video noise (LF in the spatial sense.)
>
> For even more processing, non-causal filters (look it up), allow for
> more artifact free noise reduction.
>
> I challenge you to do a good 3D (actually more dimensions) noise reduction
> in analog before any digital processing. Analog processing is generally
> quite limited due to the difficulty of certain kinds of mathematical
> operations and practical problems with memory.
>

Of course the analog processing is "limited" compared to all the
things that can be done in the "digital domain", but in terms of beneficial
effects applied to a normal video signal, providing a good clean signal
to the digitizer has the greater impact. If we were talking about what
can be done to correct a damaged video source, that might give the
unlimited processing available "Off-line", as a separate process, the
edge. Even there you would have wanted proper analog NR feeding
your efforts.

Luck;
Ken
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 3:01:01 PM

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

> The BEST place to do large scale processing of the video is in the
> digital domain AFTER digitization but before compression. As long as

Mr. Maltby has a _very_ difficult time understanding this most basic
principle of video processing.
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 3:07:42 PM

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

"Chuck U. Farley" <chuckufarleynot@dyslexia.com> wrote in message
news:EZh%d.45100$5T6.14294@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>> The BEST place to do large scale processing of the video is in the
>> digital domain AFTER digitization but before compression. As long as
>
> Mr. Maltby has a _very_ difficult time understanding this most basic
> principle of video processing.
>
>

If that quote was intended to illustrate my lack of understanding,
you should know that it's not mine. It was also an exaggeration of
the issue of simple NR into "large scale processing of the video" to
inject the versatility of the digital domain into the discussion.

But it's nice to hear from you Chucky where's your buddy "PT"?

Luck;
Ken
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 3:13:50 PM

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

The easiest way to do a straight transfer is via a standalone DVD
recorder. There are several available. I like the ones with hard
drives myself.

When you record straight to DVD, transfer for editing and then make new
DVD's you may run into an extra step of compression so in that sense it
is less desireable than say, digitizing to external hard drives and
editing before you go to DVD. Of course, if you wanted to get them all
to DVD first it would be much less expensive than buying a bunch of
hard drives. If you're not doing all of them at once then perhaps a
couple of drives would do.

Pinnacle is not a bad system for PC. Are you looking at the Studio
system or Liquid Edition? The Studio series is pretty cost effective
for home use. Apple's iDVD and iMovie are FREE with a system and DVD
Studio Pro is widely regarded as the best authoring program for the
money (DV Magazine, Videomaker, etc.) but if your invested in PC and
want to stay there then Pinnacle is probably about as good a choice as
any. I would look at the Cyberlink products as well...in fact we have
some up for auction at

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=...

Good luck and let me know if you have any other questions.

Craig

www.pro-tape.com


MrTobor wrote:
> I have tons of old 8mm tapes that I'd like to bring into the digital
> age (specifically to DVD). What I'd like to do is transfer all my raw
> footage to DVD (or CD) at the maximum quality level with no
> editing--just straight transfer.
>
> Then, I'd like use those DVDs or CDs as "masters" to begin the long
> process of editing into themed, authored DVDs.
>
> I have a Mini DV camcorder but it does not have A/D passthrough
> conversion capability so I will need a video capture device. Also, I
> have not yet purchased a DVD burner.
>
> I'd like some recommendations please. I've got my eye on some of the
> Pinnacle Studio products for capture. Anyone have any experience with
> them?
>
> Also, I want maximum DVD player compatibility (i.e., play anywhere)
> with regard to final DVD creation. Any software/hardware
> recommendations would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 4:33:45 PM

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

> >> The BEST place to do large scale processing of the video is in the
> >> digital domain AFTER digitization but before compression. As long as
> >
> > Mr. Maltby has a _very_ difficult time understanding this most basic
> > principle of video processing.
> >
> >
>
> If that quote was intended to illustrate my lack of understanding,
> you should know that it's not mine. It was also an exaggeration of

Of course it's not your quote, it's John Dyson's. It's also correct, which
means it's obviously not one of _your_ quotes. Can you not follow a thread
either?

> the issue of simple NR into "large scale processing of the video" to
> inject the versatility of the digital domain into the discussion.
>
> But it's nice to hear from you Chucky where's your buddy "PT"?

You really do have problems following a thread, don't you? Look up in _this_
thread and you'll see his posts. And yeah, I do like "buddies" who actually
know what they're talking about, that's why you're not a part of that group.

Now since the OP has a "ton of old tapes" (notice the word _old_?) please
tell us what mpeg editor _you_ would use to do the color correction that
will obviously be needed for these "old" tapes? Can your Holy Grail mpeg
editor Video Redo do that? How about transitions and titling prior to DVD
authoring?

As my "buddy" said awhile back, "When your only tool is a hammer, _every_
problem looks like a nail."
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 4:33:46 PM

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

"Chuck U. Farley" <chuckufarleynot@dyslexia.com> wrote in message
news:D kj%d.58388$%Y4.55623@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>> >> The BEST place to do large scale processing of the video is in the
>> >> digital domain AFTER digitization but before compression. As long as
>> >
>> > Mr. Maltby has a _very_ difficult time understanding this most basic
>> > principle of video processing.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> If that quote was intended to illustrate my lack of understanding,
>> you should know that it's not mine. It was also an exaggeration of
>
> Of course it's not your quote, it's John Dyson's. It's also correct, which
> means it's obviously not one of _your_ quotes. Can you not follow a thread
> either?
>
>> the issue of simple NR into "large scale processing of the video" to
>> inject the versatility of the digital domain into the discussion.
>>
>> But it's nice to hear from you Chucky where's your buddy "PT"?
>
> You really do have problems following a thread, don't you? Look up in
> _this_
> thread and you'll see his posts. And yeah, I do like "buddies" who
> actually
> know what they're talking about, that's why you're not a part of that
> group.
>
> Now since the OP has a "ton of old tapes" (notice the word _old_?) please
> tell us what mpeg editor _you_ would use to do the color correction that
> will obviously be needed for these "old" tapes? Can your Holy Grail mpeg
> editor Video Redo do that? How about transitions and titling prior to DVD
> authoring?
>
> As my "buddy" said awhile back, "When your only tool is a hammer, _every_
> problem looks like a nail."
>

If you had paid attention you would have noticed, in this thread,
where I said : " As I've said the most effective NR (as well as color
correction) is applied inline prior to digitization." -and- " In fact it
would be somewhat foolish to try and capture an analog signal from
a tape source, without compensating filters and a TBC adds a much
needed correction." So no MPEG editors are involved, in fact
because MPEG Editors are working in the digital domain, their use
would be more in line with Mr. Dyson's position.

You should really check out what the new MPEG capable "Smart"
encoding Editors can do. And I'm not including VideoReDo as one.
VRD is a great frame accurate Non-Linear Editor that handles, and
even can repair, timing data to maintain audio/video sync., but it does
not include "transitions and titling", as some of the newer MPEG
Editors do.

Luck;
Ken

P.S. Could you explain to "PT" what "Non-Linear" means, I
don't have the heart to.
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 6:21:19 PM

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

John S. Dyson wrote:
> In article <Tr-dndF0MNYrVKDfRVn-1g@giganews.com>,
> "Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> writes:

> Digital processing allows for capabilities that violate causality.
many of the things you say make sense, but I would not go that far :-)

Sampling at a high rate and using digital filters (in H, V,and t), does
not
violate causality.
At least not for the initiated.
It is just digital processing.
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 8:34:05 PM

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

In article <AZ6dnXv24--OraDfRVn-pQ@giganews.com>,
"Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
> "John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
> news:D 1j3o6$14gt$1@news.iquest.net...
>> In article <ZdWdnZAlTOCZRaHfRVn-gg@giganews.com>,
>> "Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>
>>> "John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
>>> news:D 1i2bj$o8o$1@news.iquest.net...
>>>> In article <QLWdnY-dw9L246bfRVn-2w@giganews.com>,
>>>> "Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> "John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:D 1flmu$31dq$1@news.iquest.net...
>>>>> .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bottom line wrt 8mm source: NOISE is the big boogey man, not bandwidth
>>>>>> or detail. Detail rendition becomes a derived effect of the noise
>>>>>> from the original material.
>
>>>> Actually, the truncation of the DCTs do create artifacts when
>>>> added together with the noise.
>>>
>>> Ok; I'll bite just why do you think that the DCT process, which
>>> is integral to MPEG compression, will be abnormally interrupted?
>>>
>> Do you understand the mathematical process used in the reduction of
>> data in the DCT information? It uses truncation (a kind of roundoff.)
>> It is a kind of 'chopping off' of information that produces nonlinear
>> transfer function effects. This produces spectral content that is
>> outside of the range that the sampling rate can support. This produces
>> an ugly mixture of aliasing and noise... (Please refer to the DV25
>> and/or MPEG2 video specs for seeing how this nonlinear processing
>> is implemented.) If you aren't used to the mathematics, you might
>> not understand that the modification of the DCT coefficients is a
>> nonlinear
>> process which causes out-of-band spectral content.
>>
>> Do you realize that the 'stairstepping' that DV25 (and MPEG2) are well
>> known to produce is a result of spectral content that is outside of the
>> range that the sampling rate can represent? This out of band frequency
>> content happens because of the nonlinear processing in the steps
>> that reduce the amount of data.
>>
>>>
>>> What could you possibly be feeding it, to cause such a response?
>>>
>> The normal processing (data size reduction) as an important part of
>> DV25 and MPEG2 compression chops and rounds the numerical data that
>> represents the DCT coefficients. Again, this makes nonlinear effects.
>>
>>
>
> There is nothing abnormal, unexpected or uncompensated in
> the "normal processing" that generates such effects. What you
> describe as a problem, is normal, and to the extent possible,
> compensated for. To the extent that this could be an issue, it
> would apply to all compressed video.
>
Different kinds of compression have differing amounts of 'distortion.'
Actually, the kind of distortion that is created by MPEG2, DV25, etc
is similar (NOT THE SAME) to harmonic distortion in audio. The creation
of those harmonics and beat products does produce visible distortion in
the video.

Note that you cannot fully COMPENSATE for information that is outside
of the ability of the sampling rate to represent. One manifestation
of that effect is called 'aliasing' or 'moire.'

Don't poo-poo the lousy quality of MPEG2 (or to a lesser extent, DV25)
when noisy video is encoded. It makes a big difference, and is even
obvious on cheaply made OTA commercials (typically the apparently home
made car-lot commercial video.) When you see the harsh looking, stair-steppy
video on commercials, that results from trying to push through too much
detail for a given format. This inability to reproduce detail does NOT
manifest as lesser high frequency response, but probably should. In essense,
SOMETIMES a good way to make DV25 (or MPEG2) video look better is to rolloff
the video slightly at the high frequencies.


>>>
>> The BEST place to do large scale processing of the video is in the
>> digital domain AFTER digitization but before compression. As long as
>> you have enough bit resolution (e.g. 8-10bits) of the samples, and enough
>> bit resolution for the calculations (a few more bits), and you have
>> bandlimited the data, then the digital domain gives LOTS more flexbility.
>> (Again, read carefully, once you have bandlimited the data and having
>> enough resolution, then the digital domain gives more flexibility.)
>>
>
> In other words after the NR.
>
Nope, you should probably do most of the NR in the digital domain, after
digitization and before compression. NR can require ALOT of large scale
processing in both causal and non-causal realms.


>
>> If the Philips chip that you speak of is the NTSC/PAL/SECAM decoder, that
>> chip, even though it is 'flexible', it is limited in the kind of
>> processing
>> that it can do, and it actually does ALOT Of processing in the sampled
>> domain. The results of such a chip are NOT NOISE FREE.
>
> If you looked at the numbers you should have noticed that any
> noise is well below the threshold required to change the digital
> data stream in any way.
>
Wrong -- much of the typical visible noise in consumer video is LOW FREQUENCY,
because grotesque coring techniques almost do work at high frequencies.
Just don't 'core' before digitization!!!
This is why consumer video typically has lots of large area noise (appearing
as color instability.) Without 3D processing, where the redundancy is gained
from the time domain instead of spatial, then removing the LF noise is almost
impossible. When you look at the 'numbers', you seem to forget the extremely
damaged consumer video. If you start with relatively good quality video
(e.g. 40dB SNR or better), then the composite decoding is realatively easy.
Good SNR can be gained by coring, but loss of information for subsequent
digital processing is counter productive.

BTW, when one does grotesque coring, you are also adding high frequency
components that can be rolled off, but still not really producing high
fidelity results. Coring to adequately remove consumer levels of noise
will tend to produce ugly effects (e.g. noisy edges.) If you do additional
filtering to remove the noisy edges, that will tend to be a 3D technique.
When the core-type operations occur, then information probably VERY USEFUL
in subsequent digital processing is thrown away.

Certainly, the Philips chip does more than older decoders, but is FAR FAR
from the capability of non-causal filtering and various 3D techniques.

>
> True any noise that was in the source
> analog video, and not completely removed would have also
>
So, you admit that the Philips chip doesn't remove all of the noise,
but the fact is that it is somewhat wasteful to do much more than
bandlimit the video, but instead do most processing after digitization.
Schemes like what is used in the philips chip are somewhat limited and
tend to do grotesque coring games. Sure, there might be the possiblity
for SOME 3D processing, but most of the 'canned' 3D noise reduction schemes
that I have seen tend to add motion artifacting. Features like 'peaking'
(even with gaussian type responses) are best done later in the chain.

DO NOT remove video dither before digitization, but time base stability
(spatial stability) is definitely helpful.

>
>> My standards of
>> video noise reduction tend to result in low noise in both both high
>> frequency and low frequency regions. Too often, analog noise reduction
>> and simplistic filter schemes don't reduce low frequency noise adequately,
>> and you end up with problems of slightly unstable looking colors (large
>> red fields aren't solid.) Good digital processing (necessarily 3D)
>> can reduce LF video noise (LF in the spatial sense.)
>>
>> For even more processing, non-causal filters (look it up), allow for
>> more artifact free noise reduction.
>>
>> I challenge you to do a good 3D (actually more dimensions) noise reduction
>> in analog before any digital processing. Analog processing is generally
>> quite limited due to the difficulty of certain kinds of mathematical
>> operations and practical problems with memory.
>>
>
> Of course the analog processing is "limited" compared to all the
> things that can be done in the "digital domain", but in terms of beneficial
> effects applied to a normal video signal, providing a good clean signal
> to the digitizer has the greater impact.
>
I am not arguing about that -- but chips like the Phillps chip aren't a
sufficient solution (that is what I have been claiming all along.) I
do have the NDA specs for it, and it is a 'nice' chip, but is insufficient.

A TBC can/does do amazing things, and does most of what an agile digitizer
can do before digitization. You really do want to avoid nonlinear
processing before sampling. (Even the dither in video can be helpful to
causal and non-cause reconstruction, removing the dither before digitization
is rather counter-productive.)

>
> If we were talking about what
> can be done to correct a damaged video source, that might give the
> unlimited processing available "Off-line", as a separate process, the
> edge.
>
But, there is little reason NOT to do it correctly and completely like I
suggest. As I have said, the Phillips chip is FAR FAR from sufficient.
Much of the noise reduction type effects from such chips are nonlinear
processing type operations, which are best deferred to AFTER digitization.

NONLINEAR analog processing tends to make digitizing more difficult.
STABILIZATION is definitely helpful, and agile digitizers or TBCs
are a good first step. But, those are FAR FAR before compression, and
feeding a nice, noise free, bandlimited and response shape video signal
to a compressor will make a MAJOR difference as to the ultimate TRUE
detail and artifact free compressed video.

In your initial comments, you seemed to mix-up compression and digitization.
As the compression techniques remove more and more data (e.g. MPEG2), then
it is important to do as much processing as possible BEFORE compression.

Noise (esp 3D noise that coring doesn't help) is further made worse by
MPEG2 type techniques. Once the information is thrown away (by compression,
for example), the choices in filtering are more and more the result of
guessing.

John
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 12:10:20 AM

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

In article <Tr-dndF0MNYrVKDfRVn-1g@giganews.com>,
"Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
> "Chuck U. Farley" <chuckufarleynot@dyslexia.com> wrote in message
> news:D kj%d.58388$%Y4.55623@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>>> >> The BEST place to do large scale processing of the video is in the
>>> >> digital domain AFTER digitization but before compression. As long as
>>> >
>>> > Mr. Maltby has a _very_ difficult time understanding this most basic
>>> > principle of video processing.
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> If that quote was intended to illustrate my lack of understanding,
>>> you should know that it's not mine. It was also an exaggeration of
>>
>> Of course it's not your quote, it's John Dyson's. It's also correct, which
>> means it's obviously not one of _your_ quotes. Can you not follow a thread
>> either?
>>
>>> the issue of simple NR into "large scale processing of the video" to
>>> inject the versatility of the digital domain into the discussion.
>>>
>>> But it's nice to hear from you Chucky where's your buddy "PT"?
>>
>> You really do have problems following a thread, don't you? Look up in
>> _this_
>> thread and you'll see his posts. And yeah, I do like "buddies" who
>> actually
>> know what they're talking about, that's why you're not a part of that
>> group.
>>
>> Now since the OP has a "ton of old tapes" (notice the word _old_?) please
>> tell us what mpeg editor _you_ would use to do the color correction that
>> will obviously be needed for these "old" tapes? Can your Holy Grail mpeg
>> editor Video Redo do that? How about transitions and titling prior to DVD
>> authoring?
>>
>> As my "buddy" said awhile back, "When your only tool is a hammer, _every_
>> problem looks like a nail."
>>
>
> If you had paid attention you would have noticed, in this thread,
> where I said : " As I've said the most effective NR (as well as color
> correction) is applied inline prior to digitization." -and- "
>
That statement isn't necessarily true. The most effecitve NR is applied
before COMPRESSION. Digitization doesn't necessarily negatively affect
NR, and in fact, digital techniques are typically FAR SUPERIOR to what
you can do in analog (before digitization.)

>
> In fact it
> would be somewhat foolish to try and capture an analog signal from
> a tape source, without compensating filters and a TBC adds a much
> needed correction."
>
Actually, a TBC is likely a digital capture device. The term 'compensating
filters' isn't really a term of art, but I assume that you might be speaking
of anti-aliasing. Also, there is possibility of undoing some previous
rolloffs, etc (but those are best done in the digital domain after capturing
with a little excess bit depth.)


>
> So no MPEG editors are involved, in fact
> because MPEG Editors are working in the digital domain, their use
> would be more in line with Mr. Dyson's position.
>
Actually, your claim that noise reduction is best done before digitization
is quite specious. Some of the best and more effective noise reduction
CAN NOT BE DONE IN THE ANALOG DOMAIN... (Well, they can be, but using
very non-off-the-shelf technology, and the results would likely be less
optimal.)

Digital processing allows for capabilities that violate causality.

John
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 12:10:21 AM

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

"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
news:D 1kors$1lm2$1@news.iquest.net...
> In article <Tr-dndF0MNYrVKDfRVn-1g@giganews.com>,
> "Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>
>> "Chuck U. Farley" <chuckufarleynot@dyslexia.com> wrote in message
>> news:D kj%d.58388$%Y4.55623@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>>>> >> The BEST place to do large scale processing of the video is in the
>>>> >> digital domain AFTER digitization but before compression. As long
>>>> >> as
>>>> >
>>>> > Mr. Maltby has a _very_ difficult time understanding this most basic
>>>> > principle of video processing.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> If that quote was intended to illustrate my lack of understanding,
>>>> you should know that it's not mine. It was also an exaggeration of
>>>
>>> Of course it's not your quote, it's John Dyson's. It's also correct,
>>> which
>>> means it's obviously not one of _your_ quotes. Can you not follow a
>>> thread
>>> either?
>>>
>>>> the issue of simple NR into "large scale processing of the video" to
>>>> inject the versatility of the digital domain into the discussion.
>>>>
>>>> But it's nice to hear from you Chucky where's your buddy "PT"?
>>>
>>> You really do have problems following a thread, don't you? Look up in
>>> _this_
>>> thread and you'll see his posts. And yeah, I do like "buddies" who
>>> actually
>>> know what they're talking about, that's why you're not a part of that
>>> group.
>>>
>>> Now since the OP has a "ton of old tapes" (notice the word _old_?)
>>> please
>>> tell us what mpeg editor _you_ would use to do the color correction that
>>> will obviously be needed for these "old" tapes? Can your Holy Grail mpeg
>>> editor Video Redo do that? How about transitions and titling prior to
>>> DVD
>>> authoring?
>>>
>>> As my "buddy" said awhile back, "When your only tool is a hammer,
>>> _every_
>>> problem looks like a nail."
>>>
>>
>> If you had paid attention you would have noticed, in this thread,
>> where I said : " As I've said the most effective NR (as well as color
>> correction) is applied inline prior to digitization." -and- "
>>
> That statement isn't necessarily true. The most effecitve NR is applied
> before COMPRESSION. Digitization doesn't necessarily negatively affect
> NR, and in fact, digital techniques are typically FAR SUPERIOR to what
> you can do in analog (before digitization.)
>
>>
>> In fact it
>> would be somewhat foolish to try and capture an analog signal from
>> a tape source, without compensating filters and a TBC adds a much
>> needed correction."
>>
> Actually, a TBC is likely a digital capture device. The term
> 'compensating
> filters' isn't really a term of art, but I assume that you might be
> speaking
> of anti-aliasing. Also, there is possibility of undoing some previous
> rolloffs, etc (but those are best done in the digital domain after
> capturing
> with a little excess bit depth.)
>
>
>>
>> So no MPEG editors are involved, in fact
>> because MPEG Editors are working in the digital domain, their use
>> would be more in line with Mr. Dyson's position.
>>
> Actually, your claim that noise reduction is best done before digitization
> is quite specious. Some of the best and more effective noise reduction
> CAN NOT BE DONE IN THE ANALOG DOMAIN... (Well, they can be, but using
> very non-off-the-shelf technology, and the results would likely be less
> optimal.)
>
> Digital processing allows for capabilities that violate causality.
>
> John
>

Well your posts certainly do.

Most of your crowd is captivated by "Canopus" and particularly
their ADVC-300, take a look at how it implements NR. Check
out their MVRD-2200V and MPEG Pro MVR cards also.

You might also check out www.datavideo.us and their DAC-30
as well as all their TBC models.

I may not be the one who's posts are "quite specious". In fact
it is more often that it's the "Pro Crowd" that concoct such posts.
Such as turning a part of the normal encoding process into a
"problem" that must be addressed by your pet procedures.

Luck;
Ken
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 3:58:20 AM

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

In article <1111360879.128743.114630@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
panteltje@yahoo.com writes:
>
> John S. Dyson wrote:
>> In article <Tr-dndF0MNYrVKDfRVn-1g@giganews.com>,
>> "Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
>> Digital processing allows for capabilities that violate causality.
> many of the things you say make sense, but I would not go that far :-)
>
> Sampling at a high rate and using digital filters (in H, V,and t), does
> not
> violate causality.
> At least not for the initiated.
> It is just digital processing.
>
I mean in the sense of Analog processing. Digital processing can
play some tricks that LOOK LIKE the rules are being violated from
the traditional real-time analog domain standpoint. Of course, being
most accurate, they aren't 'tricks.' I have a 'multiple' personality
as an ANALOG/RF designer, OS designer, DSP person and also studying
the math associated with 'all' of the above. At times, when working
on analog stuff, I tend to put aside my DSP mindset. Perhaps, I
used too much license in trying to adapt to the audience.

I agree, that technically, you are correct about causality.

And it is true that from the DSP developer standpoint, nothing special
is being done. Terminology is sometimes difficult to keep straight,
when trying to transmit the most information as accurately/quickly
as possible. SOMETIMES (perhaps in this case), I might end up
being innaccurate from some viewpoints (perhaps the most scholarly
viewpoints), yet still helping people to understand (a little.)

Well, one thing -- if you are doing real time DSP processing, and
cannot allow propagation delays through the signal processor, then
some of the same processing that is POSSIBLE in the digital domain
does become impossible as it is in the analog world.

From a TRADITIONAL 1960's analog developer standpoint, the ability to
look into the future is magic.

So, for the ability to look forward for better NR choices is something
that is much more difficult to do in the real time (esp ANALOG) domain.
It SUPERFICIALITY violates the cause/effect realtionships to use future
information to process current data.

John
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 12:23:56 PM

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

All,

Please review C.J.Patten's posts. He(she?) seems to understand what I'm
getting at.

I'm talking about regular 8mm (not Hi8).

I just want the transfer to digital to be as lossless as possible
seeing as how the original recordings are not hi-end video.

As a solution, I'm leaning toward Canopus ADVC50 to HD.

Tobor
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 4:44:48 PM

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

In article <oradnfCMQKkYZqDfRVn-pw@giganews.com>,
"Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
> "John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
> news:D 1kors$1lm2$1@news.iquest.net...
>> In article <Tr-dndF0MNYrVKDfRVn-1g@giganews.com>,
>> "Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>
>>> "Chuck U. Farley" <chuckufarleynot@dyslexia.com> wrote in message
>>> news:D kj%d.58388$%Y4.55623@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>>>>> >> The BEST place to do large scale processing of the video is in the
>>>>> >> digital domain AFTER digitization but before compression. As long
>>>>> >> as
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Mr. Maltby has a _very_ difficult time understanding this most basic
>>>>> > principle of video processing.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> If that quote was intended to illustrate my lack of understanding,
>>>>> you should know that it's not mine. It was also an exaggeration of
>>>>
>>>> Of course it's not your quote, it's John Dyson's. It's also correct,
>>>> which
>>>> means it's obviously not one of _your_ quotes. Can you not follow a
>>>> thread
>>>> either?
>>>>
>>>>> the issue of simple NR into "large scale processing of the video" to
>>>>> inject the versatility of the digital domain into the discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> But it's nice to hear from you Chucky where's your buddy "PT"?
>>>>
>>>> You really do have problems following a thread, don't you? Look up in
>>>> _this_
>>>> thread and you'll see his posts. And yeah, I do like "buddies" who
>>>> actually
>>>> know what they're talking about, that's why you're not a part of that
>>>> group.
>>>>
>>>> Now since the OP has a "ton of old tapes" (notice the word _old_?)
>>>> please
>>>> tell us what mpeg editor _you_ would use to do the color correction that
>>>> will obviously be needed for these "old" tapes? Can your Holy Grail mpeg
>>>> editor Video Redo do that? How about transitions and titling prior to
>>>> DVD
>>>> authoring?
>>>>
>>>> As my "buddy" said awhile back, "When your only tool is a hammer,
>>>> _every_
>>>> problem looks like a nail."
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you had paid attention you would have noticed, in this thread,
>>> where I said : " As I've said the most effective NR (as well as color
>>> correction) is applied inline prior to digitization." -and- "
>>>
>> That statement isn't necessarily true. The most effecitve NR is applied
>> before COMPRESSION. Digitization doesn't necessarily negatively affect
>> NR, and in fact, digital techniques are typically FAR SUPERIOR to what
>> you can do in analog (before digitization.)
>>
>>>
>>> In fact it
>>> would be somewhat foolish to try and capture an analog signal from
>>> a tape source, without compensating filters and a TBC adds a much
>>> needed correction."
>>>
>> Actually, a TBC is likely a digital capture device. The term
>> 'compensating
>> filters' isn't really a term of art, but I assume that you might be
>> speaking
>> of anti-aliasing. Also, there is possibility of undoing some previous
>> rolloffs, etc (but those are best done in the digital domain after
>> capturing
>> with a little excess bit depth.)
>>
>>
>>>
>>> So no MPEG editors are involved, in fact
>>> because MPEG Editors are working in the digital domain, their use
>>> would be more in line with Mr. Dyson's position.
>>>
>> Actually, your claim that noise reduction is best done before digitization
>> is quite specious. Some of the best and more effective noise reduction
>> CAN NOT BE DONE IN THE ANALOG DOMAIN... (Well, they can be, but using
>> very non-off-the-shelf technology, and the results would likely be less
>> optimal.)
>>
>> Digital processing allows for capabilities that violate causality.
>>
>> John
>>
>
> Well your posts certainly do.
>
> Most of your crowd is captivated by "Canopus" and particularly
> their ADVC-300, take a look at how it implements NR. Check
> out their MVRD-2200V and MPEG Pro MVR cards also.
>
The probably do a good job also, but unless you jack up the data
rate beyond the standard for DVD, MPEG2 is just MPEG2 for DVD. Without
extra headroom of a higher datarate, then MPEG2 is still a limiting
factor for subsequent processing. (Note that without offline processing,
or realtime processing with relatively long delays, some aspects of
noise reduction become nearly impossible.) Of course, there are likely
MPEG2 units that do things 'very well', but in the consumer domain, working
in DV25 is likely more compatible with the rest of the consumer world.
High data rate MPEG2 isn't really consumer friendly, but DV25 is. (Actually,
I mostly use DV50 for taping, but that is just a matter of maximized quality.)

This issue is NOT MPEG2 vs. DV religion (like you seem to misunderstand),
but is mostly an issue of throwing away data (like MPEG2 has to do at
6-8mpbs rates) on difficult images, and providing the highest quality
practical results on the final copies. Some people are properly satisfied
with lower image quality, but that is okay (please refer to my other
posts where I have been saying that lower quality results isn't a 'bad'.
It is true that I believe that being ignorant, or worse, choosing
to be ignorant, or even worse, suppressing information to try to
make others continue to be ignorant are NOT good things.)

Frankly, you haven't been talking about higher end solutions until now.
I don't have a disagreement with spreading information, but have problems
when you have appeared to have wished to suppress information.

>
> You might also check out www.datavideo.us and their DAC-30
> as well as all their TBC models.
>
Well, I use real TBCs, which BTW, are almost always digital devices
(especially the full field units.) You seem to have previously confused
the fact that TBCs aren't digital (you had implied that they would be
used prior to digitization.) Without digitization, the analog design
for a full frame TBC would be 'challenging' to say the least. Actually,
the digitized approach is easier, better, takes less power, etc.


>
> I may not be the one who's posts are "quite specious".
>
Well, it seems like you are being defensive and then eventually
opening your mind to more complete information.

>
> it is more often that it's the "Pro Crowd" that concoct such posts.
>
You sound like someone 15yrs ago who would be so impressed with SVHS
that you'd believe it to be the 'ultimate' format. I am not attributing
that specific idea to you, but the wrong idea that whatever consumer
goods that are available are sufficient for all consumer applications
seems to be too common.

Simply LEARNING the alternatives and simply LEARNING the details of the
technology is a growth experience. Too often, people like you seem too
satisfied being very limited. Perhaps even worse is when you seem to
wish to suppress more complete information for OTHER people.

Please don't be so defensive -- it is really good to expose a wider
view of capabilities. You seem to also imply (in part of the message
that I removed) that doing things 'correctly' or 'better' is somehow
too complex?!??! It isn't always more difficult to get better results,
but when it is a little more difficult, the results can be worthwhile.

Why are you so interested in suppressing information? Are you afraid
that other readers don't have the ability to make judgements themselves?

John
!