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

I captured several MiniDV tapes with NeroVision Express in order to
transfer them to DVD. I was not impressed with the quality of the DVDs
produced with NeroVision, so now I want to use Pinnacle Studio 9. Is
the quality of the video I captured with NeroVision the same as that of
Pinnacle Studio 9? I captured just one tape with Pinnacle Studio and
the resulting file has about the same size as that of NV (~13GB). I
wouldn't like to go back and capture all the tapes over again.

thanks

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

If you captured in DV the the answer is yes.
<jramaley@iname.com> wrote in message
news:1112364689.729851.210960@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>I captured several MiniDV tapes with NeroVision Express in order to
> transfer them to DVD. I was not impressed with the quality of the DVDs
> produced with NeroVision, so now I want to use Pinnacle Studio 9. Is
> the quality of the video I captured with NeroVision the same as that of
> Pinnacle Studio 9? I captured just one tape with Pinnacle Studio and
> the resulting file has about the same size as that of NV (~13GB). I
> wouldn't like to go back and capture all the tapes over again.
>
> thanks
>

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

jramaley wrote ...
>I captured several MiniDV tapes with NeroVision Express in order to
> transfer them to DVD. I was not impressed with the quality of the DVDs
> produced with NeroVision, so now I want to use Pinnacle Studio 9. Is
> the quality of the video I captured with NeroVision the same as that
> of
> Pinnacle Studio 9? I captured just one tape with Pinnacle Studio and
> the resulting file has about the same size as that of NV (~13GB). I
> wouldn't like to go back and capture all the tapes over again.

Yes, the "quality" should be identical. Unless something is broken,
the DV files should be virtually identical, bit-for-bit. "Capturing"
DV is really just transfering the ones and zeros from the tape into
a disc file. There is no conversion or interperetation done when
transfering a digital source.

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

<jramaley@iname.com> wrote in message
news:1112364689.729851.210960@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>I captured several MiniDV tapes with NeroVision Express in order to
> transfer them to DVD. I was not impressed with the quality of the DVDs
> produced with NeroVision, so now I want to use Pinnacle Studio 9. Is
> the quality of the video I captured with NeroVision the same as that of
> Pinnacle Studio 9? I captured just one tape with Pinnacle Studio and
> the resulting file has about the same size as that of NV (~13GB). I
> wouldn't like to go back and capture all the tapes over again.
>
> thanks
>

No, capturing may not be the same (kind of). What makes the difference is
not the capture program but the capture codec.

It depends on the codec you use to capture the DV files, some do different
things to make up for differences they feel are more important.

I know, for example, the Avid DV codec does some chroma smoothing, where the
Apple codec doesn't. This means the Avid codec looks better the first time
around but will cause generation loss. Apples doesn't cause generation loss
but the colors can look "steppy".

Understand this only counts if you are compressing to media other than DV.
If you import, edit, and export to DV tape then the process will be reversed
and no harm/no foul.

Also, this will cause a problem if you are trying to do a chroma-key. The
"steppy" colors will destroy your sanity if you try to chroma-key them.

Tom P.

Source: http://www.adamwilt.com/24p/index. [...] ifferences

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

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 15:59:15 GMT, "Henry Padilla"
<padillah@hotmail.com> wrote:

>No, capturing may not be the same (kind of). What makes the difference is
>not the capture program but the capture codec.
>
>It depends on the codec you use to capture the DV files, some do different
>things to make up for differences they feel are more important.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I have always thought the
"capture" is just a transfer of digital data, which is, thus, not
altered in any way at all.

There are differences between DV codecs, certainly, but these can only
appear when you decode or (re-)encode, something which does not
actually happen during the "capture".

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

"Bariloche" wrote ...
> Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I have always
> thought the "capture" is just a transfer of digital data, which
> is, thus, not altered in any way at all.

That is my understanding also. Which is why I prefer to call
it "transfer". Since I grew up in the days before digital video,
I still think of "capture" as involving an analog-to-digital
conversion step.

> There are differences between DV codecs, certainly, but
> these can only appear when you decode or (re-)encode,
> something which does not actually happen during the
> "capture".

Also my understanding. I'd like to see evidence that ANY
DV codec alters the data during tape-> disc file or disc
file->tape transfer.

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

"Bariloche" <bariloche@bariloche.com> wrote in message
news:sn4t41h5ffb7hqi8que2as6g4ifvv4qq2m@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 15:59:15 GMT, "Henry Padilla"
> <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>No, capturing may not be the same (kind of). What makes the difference is
>>not the capture program but the capture codec.
>>
>>It depends on the codec you use to capture the DV files, some do different
>>things to make up for differences they feel are more important.
>
> Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I have always thought the
> "capture" is just a transfer of digital data, which is, thus, not
> altered in any way at all.
>
> There are differences between DV codecs, certainly, but these can only
> appear when you decode or (re-)encode, something which does not
> actually happen during the "capture".
>

That's ONLY for rendering.. not capture.

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

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
news:114tdk8r2efgu52@corp.supernews.com...
> "Bariloche" wrote ...
>> Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I have always thought the
>> "capture" is just a transfer of digital data, which is, thus, not altered
>> in any way at all.
>
> That is my understanding also. Which is why I prefer to call
> it "transfer". Since I grew up in the days before digital video,
> I still think of "capture" as involving an analog-to-digital
> conversion step.
>
>> There are differences between DV codecs, certainly, but these can only
>> appear when you decode or (re-)encode, something which does not actually
>> happen during the "capture".
>
> Also my understanding. I'd like to see evidence that ANY
> DV codec alters the data during tape-> disc file or disc
> file->tape transfer.

Hey, I thought the same thing until a week ago or so. That's why I put the
link at the bottom of my post.

Better people than I are saying this. I was just as sure as you that there
was no messing when you captured a DV source.

Guess not.
Tom P.

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

Henry Padilla wrote:
> "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
> news:114tdk8r2efgu52@corp.supernews.com...
>> "Bariloche" wrote ...
>>> Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I have always thought
>>> the "capture" is just a transfer of digital data, which is, thus,
>>> not altered in any way at all.
>>
>> That is my understanding also. Which is why I prefer to call
>> it "transfer". Since I grew up in the days before digital video,
>> I still think of "capture" as involving an analog-to-digital
>> conversion step.
>>
>>> There are differences between DV codecs, certainly, but these can
>>> only appear when you decode or (re-)encode, something which does
>>> not actually happen during the "capture".
>>
>> Also my understanding. I'd like to see evidence that ANY
>> DV codec alters the data during tape-> disc file or disc
>> file->tape transfer.
>
> Hey, I thought the same thing until a week ago or so. That's why I
> put the link at the bottom of my post.
>
> Better people than I are saying this. I was just as sure as you that
> there was no messing when you captured a DV source.
>
> Guess not.
> Tom P.


Tom, the link you referred to was
http://www.adamwilt.com/24p/index. [...] ifferences
In the very first line, it says "...exports using the Apple DV codec, and
exports using the Avid XPressDV 3.5 codec." The key word here is "exports"
which means Richard and everyone else is correct. Importing (or
transferring or capturing) DV footage does nothing to the original footage.

Mike

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

"Mike Kujbida" <kujfam-misleadingspam@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:nXE3e.26824$w63.1741149@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
>
--SNIP--
>
> Tom, the link you referred to was
> http://www.adamwilt.com/24p/index. [...] ifferences
> In the very first line, it says "...exports using the Apple DV codec, and
> exports using the Avid XPressDV 3.5 codec." The key word here is
> "exports"
> which means Richard and everyone else is correct. Importing (or
> transferring or capturing) DV footage does nothing to the original
> footage.
>
> Mike
>

You know what? I have such a "no idea" about this I'm just gonna ask Mr.
Wilt. I'll forward the e-mail when I get it.

I'm really confused now.

Tom P.

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

LOL!

Look forward to hearing back from you Tom. Tell Adam "thank you" from me for
his generousity with information.

Chris


"Henry Padilla" <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v_qdnRbxY_P8pNLfRVn-3g@comcast.com...
>
>
> You know what? I have such a "no idea" about this I'm just gonna ask Mr.
> Wilt. I'll forward the e-mail when I get it.
>
> I'm really confused now.
>
> Tom P.
>

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

"Mike Kujbida" wrote ...
> Tom, the link you referred to was
> http://www.adamwilt.com/24p/index. [...] ifferences
> In the very first line, it says "...exports using the Apple DV
> codec, and exports using the Avid XPressDV 3.5 codec."
> The key word here is "exports" which means Richard and
> everyone else is correct. Importing (or transferring or
> capturing) DV footage does nothing to the original footage.


If you read the section referenced in the URL, it appears to say
that the *Apple* DV codec diddles the gamma so that the video
image "looks right" on their computer screen.

First, it is yet another reason I'm glad I'm not an Apple user,
and second, if Mr. Wilt's interperetation is correct, is a really
stupid way for Apple to handle this issue. If they want to goose
the gamma to correct for the computer monitor, then let them do
it when they write the data to the video RAM (a function of the
video display driver, NOT the DV codec).

If the Apple DV codec really operates that way, then all the
processing you do (anytime you have to change a frame such
as to add titles, transitions, etc. etc.), it is performing this
image manipulation in a non-linear workspace. I suppose that
if you are Apple your world view is narrow enough to justify
such foolishness. Mr. Wilt says as much in the final paragraphs.

The >90% of use who are not Apple users can merely pity
the unfortunate ones. But we don't have to worry about our
operating system second-guessing what we are trying to do.

"I hate it when my computer thinks it is smarter than I am."

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

Richard,

At the risk of getting WAY off topic, your final quote is a powerful one and
bears repeating:

"I hate it when my computer thinks it is smarter than I am."

As you've alluded, their CODEC gamma tweak was a poor choice on Apple's
behalf - it's Apple that thinks they're smarter than their users.

Things we consume in day to day living are created by other humans.

Faults you find in movies (a good topic considering our current venue) are
the result of people making poor choices, sometimes being compounded by
other people making more bad choices. Bad script - bad screen play, producer
meddling with director, director letting it slide...

It's a real treat when you come across something, be it a well designed
piece of software or a really good film, that just WORKS.

I'm looking forward to the new Rodriguez film, Sin City, and hear Rob
actually resigned from the directors guild when they told him ne couldn't do
certain things (like have Frank Miller on as co-director) Just reinforces
that greatness can be achieved when you think outside the box.

That *was* tangental.

C.


"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
news:114v3sglu753v18@corp.supernews.com...

If you read the section referenced in the URL, it appears to say
> that the *Apple* DV codec diddles the gamma so that the video
> image "looks right" on their computer screen.
> First, it is yet another reason I'm glad I'm not an Apple user,
> and second, if Mr. Wilt's interperetation is correct, is a really
> stupid way for Apple to handle this issue. If they want to goose
> the gamma to correct for the computer monitor, then let them do
> it when they write the data to the video RAM (a function of the
> video display driver, NOT the DV codec).
>
> If the Apple DV codec really operates that way, then all the
> processing you do (anytime you have to change a frame such
> as to add titles, transitions, etc. etc.), it is performing this image
> manipulation in a non-linear workspace. I suppose that
> if you are Apple your world view is narrow enough to justify
> such foolishness. Mr. Wilt says as much in the final paragraphs.
>
> The >90% of use who are not Apple users can merely pity
> the unfortunate ones. But we don't have to worry about our
> operating system second-guessing what we are trying to do.
>
> "I hate it when my computer thinks it is smarter than I am."

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

Here's another HUGE problem with Apple DV CODEC:

You transfer your DV25 footage to your Mac via Firewire putting it on, say,
an external drive. Then you want to move that drive to another workstation -
ANYTHING non-Mac - you're FUBARed.

Basically, once you're using the Mac, you're stuck with it 'cause it's the
only system that knows how to deal with it's unique gamma correct DV files.
(you can open on other systems but your Gamma will be all messed up - a make
work project in the making)

Am I missing something here?

C.


"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
news:114v3sglu753v18@corp.supernews.com...
> "Mike Kujbida" wrote ...
>> Tom, the link you referred to was
>> http://www.adamwilt.com/24p/index. [...] ifferences
>> In the very first line, it says "...exports using the Apple DV codec, and
>> exports using the Avid XPressDV 3.5 codec." The key word here is
>> "exports" which means Richard and everyone else is correct. Importing
>> (or transferring or capturing) DV footage does nothing to the original
>> footage.
>
>
> If you read the section referenced in the URL, it appears to say
> that the *Apple* DV codec diddles the gamma so that the video
> image "looks right" on their computer screen.
> First, it is yet another reason I'm glad I'm not an Apple user,
> and second, if Mr. Wilt's interperetation is correct, is a really
> stupid way for Apple to handle this issue. If they want to goose
> the gamma to correct for the computer monitor, then let them do
> it when they write the data to the video RAM (a function of the
> video display driver, NOT the DV codec).
>
> If the Apple DV codec really operates that way, then all