Trying to understand the components of DV capture/edit/vie..

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

Codecs, encoder,decoder, Directshow, DirectX etc. etc. ...(blink blink
blink).....My problem is that I really don't have an understanding of what
role these and other elements play in the whole process, which makes it more
difficult to ask intelligent questions since I'm surely using terms
incorrectly.

Can someone offer or point to a good link that gives a flowchart type
explanation of what exactly happens during capture/viewing/editing of video
from a digital camcorder? Both in the case of using the camera strictly as a
pass-through or making tape on the cam and then going to the h/d as digital
video (or even mjpeg for that matter.)

The signal or image goes into the camcorder and...what happens to it? Then
goes out to the Firewire port or capture card and....then what? And what
happens when you view it? Or send it back to a digital or analog
camcorder...

I'm frustrated that I'm drowning in a lack of understanding.

In fact, that's another thing. Is all non-streaming video either digital or
mjpeg or are there other categories as well? For example are mpeg-4, divx,
etc. altogether different animals?

My sincere appreciation for all shared wisdom.
34 answers Last reply
More about trying understand components capture edit
  1. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.video (More info?)

    codec stands for encoder/decoder. The codec used is specified in the
    file by a fourcc code uniquely identifies the codec. Examples of
    these are XVID, DIVX etc.

    My understanding is that if the application uses DIRECTSHOW to display
    the video you start talking about filters rather than codecs.

    When putting video to DVD , VCD etc there are standards that define the
    type of video files required.

    www.videohelp.com is a good source.
  2. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.video (More info?)

    "Doc" <docsavage20@xhotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:HdxIe.979$RZ2.318@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    > Codecs, encoder,decoder, Directshow, DirectX etc. etc. ...(blink blink
    > blink).....My problem is that I really don't have an understanding of what
    > role these and other elements play in the whole process, which makes it
    > more
    > difficult to ask intelligent questions since I'm surely using terms
    > incorrectly.
    >
    > Can someone offer or point to a good link that gives a flowchart type
    > explanation of what exactly happens during capture/viewing/editing of
    > video
    > from a digital camcorder? Both in the case of using the camera strictly as
    > a
    > pass-through or making tape on the cam and then going to the h/d as
    > digital
    > video (or even mjpeg for that matter.)
    >
    > The signal or image goes into the camcorder and...what happens to it? Then
    > goes out to the Firewire port or capture card and....then what? And what
    > happens when you view it? Or send it back to a digital or analog
    > camcorder...
    >
    > I'm frustrated that I'm drowning in a lack of understanding.
    >
    > In fact, that's another thing. Is all non-streaming video either digital
    > or
    > mjpeg or are there other categories as well? For example are mpeg-4, divx,
    > etc. altogether different animals?
    >
    > My sincere appreciation for all shared wisdom.
    >

    Try; www.doom9.org www.digitalfaq.com www.digital-digest.com

    Luck;
    Ken
  3. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.video (More info?)

    Doc

    Graphedit is a tool to combine filters graphically to test and create
    DirectX objects.

    May I suggest the

    microsoft.public.platformsdk.directx


    or

    microsoft.public.win32.programmer.directx.xxxxxx

    where xxxxxx is audio, graphics, sdk.. etc..

    There is a lot of discussion going on about the inner workings of
    directx.


    "Doc" <docsavage20@xhotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:HdxIe.979$RZ2.318@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    > Codecs, encoder,decoder, Directshow, DirectX etc. etc. ...(blink blink
    > blink).....My problem is that I really don't have an understanding of what
    > role these and other elements play in the whole process, which makes it
    more
    > difficult to ask intelligent questions since I'm surely using terms
    > incorrectly.
    >
    > Can someone offer or point to a good link that gives a flowchart type
    > explanation of what exactly happens during capture/viewing/editing of
    video
    > from a digital camcorder? Both in the case of using the camera strictly as
    a
    > pass-through or making tape on the cam and then going to the h/d as
    digital
    > video (or even mjpeg for that matter.)
    >
    > The signal or image goes into the camcorder and...what happens to it? Then
    > goes out to the Firewire port or capture card and....then what? And what
    > happens when you view it? Or send it back to a digital or analog
    > camcorder...
    >
    > I'm frustrated that I'm drowning in a lack of understanding.
    >
    > In fact, that's another thing. Is all non-streaming video either digital
    or
    > mjpeg or are there other categories as well? For example are mpeg-4, divx,
    > etc. altogether different animals?
    >
    > My sincere appreciation for all shared wisdom.
    >
    >
  4. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.video (More info?)

    "Jona Vark" <noemail@all.com> wrote in message
    news:NWxIe.9996$_%4.5535@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
    > Doc
    >
    > Graphedit is a tool to combine filters graphically to test and create
    > DirectX objects.
    >
    > May I suggest the
    >
    > microsoft.public.platformsdk.directx

    I guess I'm looking for something that essentially spells the basic process
    out more concisely than trying to put it together piecemeal. I.e., if I go
    to this group, I'd still be in the same boat I'm in now.
  5. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.video (More info?)

    Doc wrote:
    > Codecs, encoder,decoder, Directshow, DirectX etc. etc. ...(blink blink
    > blink).....My problem is that I really don't have an understanding of what
    > role these and other elements play in the whole process, which makes it more
    > difficult to ask intelligent questions since I'm surely using terms
    > incorrectly.
    >
    > Can someone offer or point to a good link that gives a flowchart type
    > explanation of what exactly happens during capture/viewing/editing of video
    > from a digital camcorder? Both in the case of using the camera strictly as a
    > pass-through or making tape on the cam and then going to the h/d as digital
    > video (or even mjpeg for that matter.)
    >
    > The signal or image goes into the camcorder and...what happens to it? Then
    > goes out to the Firewire port or capture card and....then what? And what
    > happens when you view it? Or send it back to a digital or analog
    > camcorder...
    >
    > I'm frustrated that I'm drowning in a lack of understanding.
    >
    > In fact, that's another thing. Is all non-streaming video either digital or
    > mjpeg or are there other categories as well? For example are mpeg-4, divx,
    > etc. altogether different animals?
    >
    > My sincere appreciation for all shared wisdom.
    >
    >

    Digging deeply into the specifics of exactly what happens to the data
    each step of the way is a good side hobby, but I get the feeling that
    your drowning in trees, so to speak.

    You take your generic batch of video. Typically, when it flows down the
    firewire line to your computer (The technical term for this process is
    'magic') it ends up in a format called DV25. (On your basic Windows
    computer) This has some compression on it, but seems to be an industry
    standard that balances size with editing potential.

    You take your editing progam, snip snip, paste paste. Then, you want to
    put it all together in a way that others can view it. You render it into
    another format using an encoder (which may or may not be part of your
    editing program) and the encoder has a choice of codec. The codecs are
    what till put your video into one of a whole bunch of different formats.
    Divx, Xvid, Mpg 1 and or 2, Avi, Windows media, Quicktime, and on and on
    and on.

    As said on this forum many times, the file type is just a 'wrapper'. In
    other words Avi dosen't necessarily mean anything specific as you can
    have uncompressed avi's, ntscdv avi's, Divx avi's, xvid avi's and I'm
    sure there are more flavors.

    But what about DVD's? Well, DVD's are really just MPG2 files. But
    nooooo, they couldn't just leave them that way could they? No, they are
    all broken down into VOB files. Again, more 'standards'. And, I'm sure
    there is a long long detailed history and explanation as to why the are
    put together this way, but, do you really need to know this to create
    DVD? No. Still, its fun to look it up in your spare time.
  6. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.video (More info?)

    Martin Heffels wrote:
    > On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 02:14:14 +1000, Cail Young <nospam@anywhere.com> wrote:
    >
    > >Almost all consumer digital video camcorders use MiniDV, which is known as
    > >DV25 for its bitrate of 25Mb/s - the other systems out there would be using
    > >MicroMV (MPEG-2 on a tiny tape), HDV (MPEG-2 on a DV tape), or DVD-RAM
    > >(again, MPEG-2).
    >
    > You left out the DV25 derivative, Digital-8.
    >
    > cheers
    >
    > -martin-
    > --
    >
    > "Northern Hemisphere tourists must purchase new CD players
    > when visiting Australia, since CDs play backwards in the
    > Southern Hemisphere due to the Coriolis Effect."


    quote: CDs play backwards in the Southern Hemisphere due to the
    Coriolis Effect

    I thought that was the explanation for the different frame rates for
    PAL and NTSC.
  7. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.video (More info?)

    Simple.

    Analog video (voltage signal; NTSC or PAL standard;
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC; keep in mind the different IRE setups
    for Japan vs. USA etc. 0 IRE vs 7.5 IRE; IRE is an arbitrary unit for
    gray level, which is really the amplitude of the voltage representing
    the gray level. 100 IRE is pure white, while the video blanking level is
    0 IRE. One IRE unit is 7.14 millivolts.) goes into DV converter box or
    digital camcorder analog to digital passthrough port (voltage signal
    gets converted by hardware chips into standard DV video feed;
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DV), then is transfered over the standard
    firewire/ieee1394/iLink cable and ports from the converted/camcorder to
    the PC that has a firewire port (same thing, different names, some
    copyrighted just to confuse consumers - standard universal name is
    ieee1394; firewire is the name used by Apple initially; iLink is used by
    Sony; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewire) as a standard DV video feed
    that gets dumped into an AVI file
    (http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/directshow/htm/dvdataintheavifileformat.asp;
    AVI is merely a wrapper/container; you can have different encoding
    formats such as DV, MPEG, etc inside for video, along with different
    audio encoding formats - raw, wav, ac3, mp3, etc.; the header of a AVI
    file allows the computer to select which codec/decoding methods to use
    to correctly playback the file) on the hard drive of your computer at
    the standard DV video rate of 13GB/hour.

    Editing an AVI file merely opens up that file, decodes the header, then
    decodes each frame of the video as needed into RAW video format
    (uncompressed) for manipulation by the video editing program. After
    edits are finished, the video can either be stored as a RAW video format
    on the Hard drive in AVI format, or compressed and stored as a DV AVI,
    MJPEG AVI, mpeg-1/2/4 MPG file, etc using the selected codecs
    (compression algorithms stored inside a single file that can be run by
    the computer to compress video/audio streams;
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codec).

    Viewing is merely a subset of the above - merely the decoding part
    followed by display of the image frame on the monitor.

    ---

    Of course, if you really want the technical details of what's going on,
    you can always look up the specifications for each part of the pathway
    in detail.
  8. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.video (More info?)

    Doc wrote:

    > Codecs, encoder,decoder, Directshow, DirectX etc. etc. ...(blink blink
    > blink).....My problem is that I really don't have an understanding of what
    > role these and other elements play in the whole process, which makes it more
    > difficult to ask intelligent questions since I'm surely using terms
    > incorrectly.
    >
    > Can someone offer or point to a good link that gives a flowchart type
    > explanation of what exactly happens during capture/viewing/editing of video
    > from a digital camcorder?

    Not a flowchart, but a complete set of definitions covering compression,
    codex, etc.

    http://www.microsoft.com/mspress/books/sampchap/6428.asp#126
  9. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.video (More info?)

    While I'm still not providing you with the flowchart you asked for (not a
    lot of time on my hands right now), here are a couple more resources for
    you. It sounds like you are very new to digital video (forgive me if
    I've come to the wrong conclusion). The attachments here will explain a
    number of concepts that may help you build that flowchart in your head
    until someone else here can give you one. Some of the other links
    already posted are indeed worth a look. Make sure you don't pass those
    up.

    Yes, the pdf files provided are from Adobe and Avid, and so may speak
    specifically about their products, but there is a good amount of
    foundation in these 3 files.

    The DV Primer may be the best starting place. It talks you through from
    shooting video to capturing and editing, to making DVDs.

    The Intro to DV is more selling tool than anything else, but I included
    it anyway.

    The Glossary from Avid is a good resource to look up those terms often
    tossed around by some of the more experienced in the community

    Hope you find some help in these files. You should let us know what
    resources you actually get some usage out of so that when other new users
    ask the same questions, there is some idea of what really helps and what
    doesn't.

    Erich

    "Doc" <docsavage20@xhotmail.com> wrote in
    news:HdxIe.979$RZ2.318@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:

    > Codecs, encoder,decoder, Directshow, DirectX etc. etc. ...(blink blink
    > blink).....My problem is that I really don't have an understanding of
    > what role these and other elements play in the whole process, which
    > makes it more difficult to ask intelligent questions since I'm surely
    > using terms incorrectly.
    >
    > Can someone offer or point to a good link that gives a flowchart type
    > explanation of what exactly happens during capture/viewing/editing of
    > video from a digital camcorder? Both in the case of using the camera
    > strictly as a pass-through or making tape on the cam and then going to
    > the h/d as digital video (or even mjpeg for that matter.)
    >
    > The signal or image goes into the camcorder and...what happens to it?
    > Then goes out to the Firewire port or capture card and....then what?
    > And what happens when you view it? Or send it back to a digital or
    > analog camcorder...
    >
    > I'm frustrated that I'm drowning in a lack of understanding.
    >
    > In fact, that's another thing. Is all non-streaming video either
    > digital or mjpeg or are there other categories as well? For example
    > are mpeg-4, divx, etc. altogether different animals?
    >
    > My sincere appreciation for all shared wisdom.
    >
    >
    >
  10. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.video (More info?)

    Erich <not@home.com> wrote in news:lLadnTPURIpoJW7fRVn-qw@comcast.com:

    > While I'm still not providing you with the flowchart you asked for
    > (not a lot of time on my hands right now), here are a couple more
    > resources for you. It sounds like you are very new to digital video
    > (forgive me if I've come to the wrong conclusion). The attachments
    > here will explain a number of concepts that may help you build that
    > flowchart in your head until someone else here can give you one. Some
    > of the other links already posted are indeed worth a look. Make sure
    > you don't pass those up.
    >
    > Yes, the pdf files provided are from Adobe and Avid, and so may speak
    > specifically about their products, but there is a good amount of
    > foundation in these 3 files.
    >
    > The DV Primer may be the best starting place. It talks you through
    > from shooting video to capturing and editing, to making DVDs.
    >
    > The Intro to DV is more selling tool than anything else, but I
    > included it anyway.
    >
    > The Glossary from Avid is a good resource to look up those terms often
    > tossed around by some of the more experienced in the community
    >
    > Hope you find some help in these files. You should let us know what
    > resources you actually get some usage out of so that when other new
    > users ask the same questions, there is some idea of what really helps
    > and what doesn't.
    >
    > Erich
    >
    OK, that was my first time trying to post a file and it doesn't appear to
    have worked, so here are links to the files online.

    http://www.avid.com/freedv/avideditingglossary.pdf
    http://media.studio.adobe.com/linked_content/en/dvprimer/dvprimer.pdf
    http://media.studio.adobe.com/linked_content/en/intro2dv/intro2dv.pdf

    You may have to register at Adobe's site to get their 2 files. The Avid
    link shouldn't require any registration.

    Good luck

    Erich

    > "Doc" <docsavage20@xhotmail.com> wrote in
    > news:HdxIe.979$RZ2.318@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
    >
    >> Codecs, encoder,decoder, Directshow, DirectX etc. etc. ...(blink
    >> blink blink).....My problem is that I really don't have an
    >> understanding of what role these and other elements play in the whole
    >> process, which makes it more difficult to ask intelligent questions
    >> since I'm surely using terms incorrectly.
    >>
    >> Can someone offer or point to a good link that gives a flowchart type
    >> explanation of what exactly happens during capture/viewing/editing of
    >> video from a digital camcorder? Both in the case of using the camera
    >> strictly as a pass-through or making tape on the cam and then going
    >> to the h/d as digital video (or even mjpeg for that matter.)
    >>
    >> The signal or image goes into the camcorder and...what happens to it?
    >> Then goes out to the Firewire port or capture card and....then what?
    >> And what happens when you view it? Or send it back to a digital or
    >> analog camcorder...
    >>
    >> I'm frustrated that I'm drowning in a lack of understanding.
    >>
    >> In fact, that's another thing. Is all non-streaming video either
    >> digital or mjpeg or are there other categories as well? For example
    >> are mpeg-4, divx, etc. altogether different animals?
    >>
    >> My sincere appreciation for all shared wisdom.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  11. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.video (More info?)

    Doc,

    DirectX is simply Windows' response to those of us who were developing
    for the PC and early Windows versions. Back then we were ablke to write
    directly to hardware buffers on video cards and as Windows grew up that
    functionality disappeared. So DirectX is a solution that provides faster
    drawing, image processing and audio processing.

    It is a fairly steep learning curve to get it all sorted out.

    Filters and codecs are not related per se. The DV filters are processes
    that perform some action on the data stream. Or they 'render' that stream to
    a device. If you are a programmer you should download the DXSDK from MS and
    start reading the materials and running the sample apps that come with it.
    Then you can begin asking questions in the development newsgroups. Even if
    you are not a programmer the SDK can be very helpful.

    There are also a ton of books out on DX.

    best


    "Doc" <docsavage20@xhotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:VRBIe.1080$RZ2.822@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    >
    > "Jona Vark" <noemail@all.com> wrote in message
    > news:NWxIe.9996$_%4.5535@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
    > > Doc
    > >
    > > Graphedit is a tool to combine filters graphically to test and
    create
    > > DirectX objects.
    > >
    > > May I suggest the
    > >
    > > microsoft.public.platformsdk.directx
    >
    > I guess I'm looking for something that essentially spells the basic
    process
    > out more concisely than trying to put it together piecemeal. I.e., if I go
    > to this group, I'd still be in the same boat I'm in now.
    >
    >
  12. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.video (More info?)

    On 5/8/05 9:08 AM, "Doc" <docsavage20@xhotmail.com> wrote:

    > For example are mpeg-4, divx,
    > etc. altogether different animals?


    Divx is an implementation of MPEG-4, as is Xvid.

    Basically you have two major categories of digital video compression, DV
    (which includes DV25, DV50, DVCAM, DVCPRO, and all other 'Intraframe-only'
    codecs; and you have MPEG based interframe codecs known as MPEG-1, -2, and
    -4 as well as MJPEG and a few others like HDV.

    Intraframe means that each frame is compressed individually and exists as a
    complete frame. This is best for editing, as you can cut anywhere and
    there's nothing to worry about.

    Interframe means that most frames are encoded as 'the difference from the
    last frame' to save space - but you lost editability as any cuts have to
    either fall on the "I frames" which are intra-only frames, or you have to do
    some magic to make a new I frame from a non-I frame.

    Almost all consumer digital video camcorders use MiniDV, which is known as
    DV25 for its bitrate of 25Mb/s - the other systems out there would be using
    MicroMV (MPEG-2 on a tiny tape), HDV (MPEG-2 on a DV tape), or DVD-RAM
    (again, MPEG-2).

    Capturing DV25 video from a camcorder is lossless, as the 'encoding' upon
    capture is really just ensuring that there aren't frames dropped in the
    stream being written to the hard drive. Outputting the edited DV (assuming
    there's no effects or transitions applied) is also lossless, as you're just
    streaming pure DV25 back onto the tape.

    To RS: DVD-Video uses program stream VOBs so that you can have multiple
    synchronised audio and video tracks in one file without using native
    timecode - it just multiplexes every track into a Video OBject file so the
    decoder can just pull out whichever tracks it wants. See, not that long or
    difficult an explanation :)
  13. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.video (More info?)

    On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 02:14:14 +1000, Cail Young <nospam@anywhere.com> wrote:

    >Almost all consumer digital video camcorders use MiniDV, which is known as
    >DV25 for its bitrate of 25Mb/s - the other systems out there would be using
    >MicroMV (MPEG-2 on a tiny tape), HDV (MPEG-2 on a DV tape), or DVD-RAM
    >(again, MPEG-2).

    You left out the DV25 derivative, Digital-8.

    cheers

    -martin-
    --

    "Northern Hemisphere tourists must purchase new CD players
    when visiting Australia, since CDs play backwards in the
    Southern Hemisphere due to the Coriolis Effect."
  14. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.video (More info?)

    "Erich" wrote ...
    > OK, that was my first time trying to post a file and it
    > doesn't appear to have worked,

    Posting attachments (particularly big attachments) to any
    newsgroups that do not include the word "binaries" in its
    name is an abuse of Usenet. None of these newsgroups
    are binary.

    Far worse than just not working, posting large attachments
    to non-binary newsgroups jeopardizes the newsgroup's
    propogation around the planet. If people start posting attachments
    to non-binary newsgroups, some (many?) service providers
    will just drop the newsgroup because of abuse. This is bad
    for you and for all of us.

    > so here are links to the files online.

    THAT is the correct way to provide the information.
    Good for you.
  15. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.video (More info?)

    "Doc" wrote ...
    > Codecs, encoder,decoder, Directshow, DirectX etc. etc. ...
    > (blink blink blink).....My problem is that I really don't have
    > an understanding of what role these and other elements play
    > in the whole process, which makes it more difficult to ask
    > intelligent questions since I'm surely using terms incorrectly.

    It would be extraordinarly helpful to know WHY you are asking.
    Are you just curious about how your computer imports video from
    your camcorder and edits it? Are you trying to solve some problem?
    Are you thinking about wringing some application software and/or
    drivers/codecs?

    IMHO, your question is too big and diverse to answer adequately
    here.
  16. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.video (More info?)

    "Richard Crowley" wrote ...
    > Are you thinking about wringing some application software and/or
    > drivers/codecs?

    Bzzzzt! I meant "writing", but maybe "wringing" is a Freuian slip! :-)
  17. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.video (More info?)

    On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 17:04:35 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
    <rcrowley@xpr7t.net> wrote:

    >Far worse than just not working, posting large attachments
    >to non-binary newsgroups jeopardizes the newsgroup's
    >propogation around the planet. If people start posting attachments
    >to non-binary newsgroups, some (many?) service providers
    >will just drop the newsgroup because of abuse. This is bad
    >for you and for all of us.

    I thought news servers which cared about such things just noted the
    lack of the binaries flag and dumped attachments. I've heard reports
    of a user's ISP complaining about uploading attachments to
    non-binaries groups. But not of the group being deleted. Has it
    happened? What group?
  18. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.video (More info?)

    "Laurence Payne" wrote ...
    > "Richard Crowley" wrote:
    >>Far worse than just not working, posting large attachments
    >>to non-binary newsgroups jeopardizes the newsgroup's
    >>propogation around the planet. If people start posting attachments
    >>to non-binary newsgroups, some (many?) service providers
    >>will just drop the newsgroup because of abuse. This is bad
    >>for you and for all of us.
    >
    > I thought news servers which cared about such things just
    > noted the lack of the binaries flag and dumped attachments.

    Few things in life are that simple. There are probably at
    least a dozen different NNTP server apps and you can
    bet that they likely don't all work alike. Lots of NNTP
    service operators "budget" a certain amount of disc space
    for certain newsgroups, and those that consistently exceed
    the capacity either get reduced in storage time or just get
    dropped completely.

    Usenet news is not a profit center for most ISPs and they
    can't afford to have a high-priced expert spend a lot of time
    fine-tuning the service. You and I may read only a few
    newsgroups, but there are something around 100,000 of them
    out there and individual attention and tuning seems unlikely.

    > I've heard reports of a user's ISP complaining about
    > uploading attachments to non-binaries groups. But not of
    > the group being deleted. Has it happened? What group?

    Usenet is littered with thousands of newsgroups that are
    no longer used because providers dropped them for abuse
    (attachments in a non-binaries group among the problems.)

    Perhaps a better question is "where?" Remember that the
    entire system is voluntary and "best effort" and nothing is
    guaranteed. The more servers that drop a newsgroup
    (independently, one at a time), the lower the volume
    because of lack of circulation, and that just feeds on
    itself until nobody carries it anymore.
  19. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.video (More info?)

    "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xpr7t.net> wrote in message
    news:11fak5meh6ibo9c@corp.supernews.com...
    > "Doc" wrote ...
    > > Codecs, encoder,decoder, Directshow, DirectX etc. etc. ...
    > > (blink blink blink).....My problem is that I really don't have
    > > an understanding of what role these and other elements play
    > > in the whole process, which makes it more difficult to ask
    > > intelligent questions since I'm surely using terms incorrectly.
    >
    > It would be extraordinarly helpful to know WHY you are asking.
    > Are you just curious about how your computer imports video from
    > your camcorder and edits it? Are you trying to solve some problem?
    > Are you thinking about wringing some application software and/or
    > drivers/codecs?

    The immediate motivation is to solve a problem. But I find it's difficult to
    navigate the tools that have been suggested such as Graphedit, due to a lack
    of an overall understanding of the process.
  20. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.video (More info?)

    "Doc" wrote ...
    > "Richard Crowley" wrote...
    >> "Doc" wrote ...
    >> > Codecs, encoder,decoder, Directshow, DirectX etc. etc. ...
    >> > (blink blink blink).....My problem is that I really don't have
    >> > an understanding of what role these and other elements play
    >> > in the whole process, which makes it more difficult to ask
    >> > intelligent questions since I'm surely using terms incorrectly.
    >>
    >> It would be extraordinarly helpful to know WHY you are asking.
    >> Are you just curious about how your computer imports video from
    >> your camcorder and edits it? Are you trying to solve some problem?
    >> Are you thinking about wringing some application software and/or
    >> drivers/codecs?
    >
    > The immediate motivation is to solve a problem. But I find it's
    > difficult to
    > navigate the tools that have been suggested such as Graphedit, due to
    > a lack
    > of an overall understanding of the process.

    Did you ask for help with the problem? How did you arrive
    at the notion that Graphedit is the solution? Seems dubious
    that you can arrive at a solution by asking theoretical questions
    about codecs?
  21. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.video (More info?)

    "Jona Vark" wrote ...
    > Usenet is free and easy but by no means is it something we would
    > miss if we had to come up with alternative discussion methods.

    Speak for yourself. Usenet is far and away more fast
    and easy than web-based discussion solution I have
    seen yet. If you have some examples of methods that
    beat Usenet, I'd be interested in seeing them.
  22. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.video (More info?)

    "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xpr7t.net> wrote in message
    news:11fdlh8dffhs91c@corp.supernews.com...

    > Did you ask for help with the problem?

    ??

    This thread would in fact be part of the answer to that question. I've asked
    several.

    > How did you arrive
    > at the notion that Graphedit is the solution?

    It's part of the input I've gotten in response to the various questions I've
    asked here and in other places. In essence I didn't arrive at the notion,
    someone else suggested it. If I knew enough to determine if it is or isn't
    going to be useful, I imagine I wouldn't be having the problem.

    Some part of the chain of events between the Firewire port on the camcorder
    and my eyeballs when viewing the captured image is causing the banding
    artifact that I've described at length. Ergo, it's logical that I gain an
    understanding of that chain of events.

    > Seems dubious
    > that you can arrive at a solution by asking theoretical questions
    > about codecs?

    See the title of the thread. Re-read the initial post, in particular the
    first paragraph. I'm trying to gain an understanding of the process. My
    query isn't restricted to just codecs as such. Trying to see how it all fits
    together.
  23. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.video (More info?)

    "Doc" wrote ...
    > Some part of the chain of events between the Firewire port on the
    > camcorder
    > and my eyeballs when viewing the captured image is causing the banding
    > artifact that I've described at length. Ergo, it's logical that I gain
    > an
    > understanding of that chain of events.

    It would be helpful to keep the entire discussion together
    to help people understand the whole picture. Starting a
    new thread, and especially one with no reference to the
    underlying problem, just causes you to start over again
    almost from scratch.

    Did you ever post an image of the "banding" you are seeing?
  24. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.video (More info?)

    On 8/8/05 1:12 PM, "Doc" <docsavage20@xhotmail.com> wrote:

    >
    > "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xpr7t.net> wrote in message
    > news:11fak5meh6ibo9c@corp.supernews.com...
    >> "Doc" wrote ...
    >>> Codecs, encoder,decoder, Directshow, DirectX etc. etc. ...
    >>> (blink blink blink).....My problem is that I really don't have
    >>> an understanding of what role these and other elements play
    >>> in the whole process, which makes it more difficult to ask
    >>> intelligent questions since I'm surely using terms incorrectly.
    >>
    >> It would be extraordinarly helpful to know WHY you are asking.
    >> Are you just curious about how your computer imports video from
    >> your camcorder and edits it? Are you trying to solve some problem?
    >> Are you thinking about wringing some application software and/or
    >> drivers/codecs?
    >
    > The immediate motivation is to solve a problem. But I find it's difficult to
    > navigate the tools that have been suggested such as Graphedit, due to a lack
    > of an overall understanding of the process.
    >
    >

    Even I don't fully understand Graphedit... I can fiddle with it to make it
    dump a WMV into a DV file, but aside from that it's quite confusing.
    Basically what the program does is let you build an alternate filter chain
    for any situation. If you 'render' a file within Graphedit it'll show you
    the chain that a DirectShow application would use to display the video. You
    can then modify the chain to your heart's content and if you include a
    fileout or dump filter you can write the changed file to disk.
  25. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.video (More info?)

    "Cail Young" <nospam@anywhere.com> wrote in message
    news:BF1D2D7E.7652%nospam@anywhere.com...
    > On 8/8/05 1:12 PM, "Doc" <docsavage20@xhotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xpr7t.net> wrote in message
    >> news:11fak5meh6ibo9c@corp.supernews.com...
    >>> "Doc" wrote ...
    >>>> Codecs, encoder,decoder, Directshow, DirectX etc. etc. ...
    >>>> (blink blink blink).....My problem is that I really don't have
    >>>> an understanding of what role these and other elements play
    >>>> in the whole process, which makes it more difficult to ask
    >>>> intelligent questions since I'm surely using terms incorrectly.
    >>>
    >>> It would be extraordinarly helpful to know WHY you are asking.
    >>> Are you just curious about how your computer imports video from
    >>> your camcorder and edits it? Are you trying to solve some problem?
    >>> Are you thinking about wringing some application software and/or
    >>> drivers/codecs?
    >>
    >> The immediate motivation is to solve a problem. But I find it's difficult
    >> to
    >> navigate the tools that have been suggested such as Graphedit, due to a
    >> lack
    >> of an overall understanding of the process.
    >>
    >>
    >
    > Even I don't fully understand Graphedit... I can fiddle with it to make it
    > dump a WMV into a DV file, but aside from that it's quite confusing.
    > Basically what the program does is let you build an alternate filter chain
    > for any situation. If you 'render' a file within Graphedit it'll show you
    > the chain that a DirectShow application would use to display the video.
    > You
    > can then modify the chain to your heart's content and if you include a
    > fileout or dump filter you can write the changed file to disk.
    >

    Which, if you were following Doc's posts and my replies from
    the beginning, would explain why I suggested he use GraphEdit
    to see what DirectShow was using and have a way to try some
    alternatives. Your description would suggest that you aren't that
    confused, regarding GraphEdit; that is what it's for. In fact you
    seem to have found a use, well beyond it's normal intended
    function.

    Luck;
    Ken
  26. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.video (More info?)

    "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xpr7t.net> wrote in message
    news:11feuk7esigpm9c@corp.supernews.com...
    > "Jona Vark" wrote ...
    > > Usenet is free and easy but by no means is it something we would
    > > miss if we had to come up with alternative discussion methods.
    >
    > Speak for yourself. Usenet is far and away more fast
    > and easy than web-based discussion solution I have
    > seen yet. If you have some examples of methods that
    > beat Usenet, I'd be interested in seeing them.

    Richard

    I always speak for myself. As you have here.

    While you believe this is fast and easy I believe it is crowded with
    NOISE and has random direction. Only a small percentage of posts are
    relevant topics often and the tenor and direction of newsgroups is like the
    wind. Always changing. I have no problem with more elaborate methods of
    group communication. They do not frustrate me as much as they may frustrate
    you. Although I fail to see why 'blogs' have caught the attention of so
    many. Seems like painting potatoes red and selling them as apples.. They're
    just lists dressed up to carry ads.

    Your tone has become somewhat terse in the last few months. Especially
    initial responses to newbie posters who may not understand what they are
    doing yet. Although you usually post accurate intelligent responses I can't
    believe you enjoy it that much here.
  27. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.video (More info?)

    "Jona Vark" wrote ...
    > While you believe this [Usenet] is fast and easy I believe
    > it is crowded with NOISE and has random direction. Only
    > a small percentage of posts are relevant topics often and the
    > tenor and direction of newsgroups is like the wind. Always
    > changing.

    Usenet has always been like this. It doesn't bother me.
    I scan the subject lines for things that look interesting
    to me and make effective use of killfiles and ignore
    flags. I don't find any of the things you complain about
    to be particularly troublesome.

    > I have no problem with more elaborate methods of
    > group communication. They do not frustrate me as much
    > as they may frustrate you.

    I am frustrated by the clunky user interfaces (frequently
    not even threaded!) But it isn't really because they are
    "elaborate", but that they are so low volume that they
    aren't terribly interesting, nor do they have good, vigorous
    discussions.

    > Although I fail to see why 'blogs' have caught the attention
    > of so many. Seems like painting potatoes red and selling
    > them as apples.. They're just lists dressed up to carry ads.

    I agree that blogs seem like PZM microphones, pet rocks,
    and chia-pets. An unexplainable craze.

    > Your tone has become somewhat terse in the last few
    > months. Especially initial responses to newbie posters
    > who may not understand what they are doing yet.

    I will try to temper my handling of newbies. But there are
    some semi-regular people who come here every few
    months with pretty hair-brained stuff. And people who
    seem to want others to do their research for them. Perhaps
    you haven't hung around here consistently enough to
    recognize them?

    Perhaps I should make more references to this...
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
    Or one of my favorite quotes: "I'll try being nicer if
    you'll try being smarter." :-)

    > Although you usually post accurate intelligent responses
    > I can't believe you enjoy it that much here.

    I enjoy it quite a bit. I just have low tolerance for
    foolishness.
  28. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.video (More info?)

    On 8/8/05 10:08 PM, "Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

    > Your description would suggest that you aren't that
    > confused, regarding GraphEdit; that is what it's for. In fact you
    > seem to have found a use, well beyond it's normal intended
    > function.

    My confusion is at a more specialised level, such as why certain filters
    just won't connect... Overall I do 'get it', yeah.
  29. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.video (More info?)

    "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xpr7t.net> wrote in message
    news:11fgh8rau9lqaf6@corp.supernews.com...

    >>I will try to temper my handling of newbies. But there are
    some semi-regular people who come here every few
    months with pretty hair-brained stuff.


    I suppose that's whay I am losing interest in this NG and pretty much come
    by out of habit. I read a lot of your responses.

    >>Perhaps I should make more references to this...
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
    Or one of my favorite quotes: "I'll try being nicer if
    you'll try being smarter." :-)


    That's an interesting site. I guess I can't assume they are asking stupid
    questions for any other reason than they don't understand the subject
    enough. If they did they wouldn't have to ask. I taught myself the skills I
    use now to make a living. And I have a few folks who were patient when I
    asked dumb questions to thank for help along the way.
    Then again.. some people are just plain stupid.

    > > Although you usually post accurate intelligent responses
    > > I can't believe you enjoy it that much here.
    >
    > I enjoy it quite a bit. I just have low tolerance for
    > foolishness.

    You used to be more patient. But I am usually far less patient than you.
  30. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.video (More info?)

    "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xpr7t.net> wrote in message
    news:11feuu4p4aq6e2b@corp.supernews.com...

    > Did you ever post an image of the "banding" you are seeing?

    http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.video.desktop/browse_frm/thread/436e26c783d75a22/78ad22d108aacb12?q=Should+mpeg+and+DV+video+look&rnum=1#78ad22d108aacb12

    An entire thread devoted to it, my initial inquiry contains a link to a page
    I put up. If that link causes issues, the title of the thread is:

    Should mjpeg and DV video look essentially the same on a tv? More vertical
    banding problems.

    Or here's the link to the webpage:

    http://home.mpinet.net/~docsavage20/examples_of_video_banding/index.html
  31. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.video (More info?)

    "Doc" <docsavage20@xhotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:WhbKe.5796$ns.2535@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...

    > > Did you ever post an image of the "banding" you are seeing?
    >
    >
    http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.video.desktop/browse_frm/thread/436e26c783d75a22/78ad22d108aacb12?q=Should+mpeg+and+DV+video+look&rnum=1#78ad22d108aacb12

    As a note, don't read too much into the fact that the borders on the images
    are different - i.e. the ones from the DV video with the banding have black
    borders put on with Virtual Dub, the mjpeg stills don't. Has no bearing on
    the presence of the artifacting.
  32. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.video (More info?)

    Just what do you mean by "film".


    On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 22:54:33 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
    <rcrowley@xpr7t.net> wrote:

    >"Jona Vark" wrote ...
    >> While you believe this [Usenet] is fast and easy I believe
    >> it is crowded with NOISE and has random direction. Only
    >> a small percentage of posts are relevant topics often and the
    >> tenor and direction of newsgroups is like the wind. Always
    >> changing.
    >
    >Usenet has always been like this. It doesn't bother me.
    >I scan the subject lines for things that look interesting
    >to me and make effective use of killfiles and ignore
    >flags. I don't find any of the things you complain about
    >to be particularly troublesome.
    >
    >> I have no problem with more elaborate methods of
    >> group communication. They do not frustrate me as much
    >> as they may frustrate you.
    >
    >I am frustrated by the clunky user interfaces (frequently
    >not even threaded!) But it isn't really because they are
    >"elaborate", but that they are so low volume that they
    >aren't terribly interesting, nor do they have good, vigorous
    >discussions.
    >
    >> Although I fail to see why 'blogs' have caught the attention
    >> of so many. Seems like painting potatoes red and selling
    >> them as apples.. They're just lists dressed up to carry ads.
    >
    >I agree that blogs seem like PZM microphones, pet rocks,
    >and chia-pets. An unexplainable craze.
    >
    >> Your tone has become somewhat terse in the last few
    >> months. Especially initial responses to newbie posters
    >> who may not understand what they are doing yet.
    >
    >I will try to temper my handling of newbies. But there are
    >some semi-regular people who come here every few
    >months with pretty hair-brained stuff. And people who
    >seem to want others to do their research for them. Perhaps
    >you haven't hung around here consistently enough to
    >recognize them?
    >
    >Perhaps I should make more references to this...
    >http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
    >Or one of my favorite quotes: "I'll try being nicer if
    >you'll try being smarter." :-)
    >
    >> Although you usually post accurate intelligent responses
    >> I can't believe you enjoy it that much here.
    >
    >I enjoy it quite a bit. I just have low tolerance for
    >foolishness.
  33. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production,rec.video (More info?)

    "Donald Link" wrote ...
    > Just what do you mean by "film".

    Huh? The word "film" doesn't appear in the thread.
Ask a new question

Read More

Tuner Cards Video Camcorders Components Graphics Product