Re: mpeg 2 editing
- From: "AnthonyR" <nomail@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 17:26:49 GMT
<ptravel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> Ken Maltby wrote:
>> Now with "Smart Rendering" enough information is collected
>> from the rendering of each frame to allow the program to do a
>> very precise "re-encoding" of effected frames. This is so much an
>> exact match to the first MPEG, that it will fit in perfectly with the
>> rest of the MPEG's frames, that are simply copied to the new
>> MPEG. ( You don't think the bit for bit copy of the unedited
>> frames, causes a "Loss" do you? You are aware how MPEG
>> frames are dependent on each other, I know because you are
>> always complaining about it. Wouldn't the edited frames have to
>> be a very close match to fit in? )
>> Think about it.
> More unadulaterated garbage. I don't care how "smart" the software is,
> it cannot recreate data that doesn't exist. Retranscoding mpeg causes
> data loss and image degradation. Period.
> And I think you know this, too, but were too excited about the
> opportunity to make snide remarks about me. If you think working with
> the degraded result of retranscoding mpeg-compressed video is not only
> acceptable, but a preferred alternative to that which results from
> working in with a non-temporally-compressed medium, then your standards
> are significantly below those of even the most casual hobbyists.
> And in case it isn't clear to anyone following this thread,
> DVD-compliant mpeg, which represents the best-case scenario for the
> cheapie capture cards and DVD and hard-disk consumer camcorders ALREADY
> compromises video quality significantly compared to DV-25 video
> produced by miniDV and miniDVcam camcorders. Add in the fact that
> these devices use single-pass, consumer-grade hardware encoders and
> THEN edit the resulting mpeg2 video in one of the few consumer-grade
> programs available to do so, and you wind up with video that isn't
> remotely comparable to what can readily be achieved with consumer-grade
> cameras and software using DV-25.
Just to interject two quick thoughts of mine on this subject.
1. I do think it's possible for smart-redering enabled software to make
video better by means of comparing frames and eliminating random noise and
other artifacts that the software can clearly see aren't in the before and
after frames, that should be a plus in the mpeg final output.
It can't add pixels that weren't there true, but it can remove random noise
that is there, and make a cleaner looking video after it processes it.
Like 3d comb filter, 4d line filter, whatever they call it. To a certain
extent of course.
2. All this stuff happenning that is causing consumers to use mpeg for
editing and miniDVD for acquisition etc...
PTravel, don't feel it will degrade the video world in general, In contrast,
it will only allow for a greater divide between profession video
and amateur video agian.
Something that was lost when miniDV came about and closed the gap
considerably. This might be the industries own attempt to once again
create a bigger divide, so they can sell MUCH more expensive equiptment to
the Pro industry and much cheaper stuff to the consumer feild.
Doesn't that sound like something the manufactures would love?
Higher prices for broadcast miniDV type cameras and lower prices for mpeg
DVD type consumer cameras?
I think they purposely are making consumers accept the mpeg stuff, so the
Pro's that want pure high level will have no consumer stuff
to buy and have to go back to paying thru the nose for non-mpeg capture
cameras and equiptment.
How does that sound as a theory?
- Re: mpeg 2 editing
- From: PTravel
- Re: mpeg 2 editing
- Prev by Date: Re: Digitizing video - need help please
- Next by Date: Re: Digitizing video - need help please
- Previous by thread: Re: mpeg 2 editing
- Next by thread: Re: mpeg 2 editing