Re: mpeg 2 editing


"AnthonyR" <nomail@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:t5BZe.2059$wf6.170453@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> <ptravel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1127668594.702950.74090@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > 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.
> >>
> >> Luck;
> >> Ken
> >
> > 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.

Anthony, there's a difference between correcting video and resurrecting data
that isn't there to begin with. Most decent editing packages have
variations on noise-reduction filters -- video noise, both chroma and luma,
can be detected algorithmically to an extent. Mpeg is a lossy-compression
technique, and "lossy" means just that -- data is lost. Once it's gone,
it's gone. Take sections of two clips that were transcoded to mpeg and try
any effect or transition, and you're going to lose even more data. 2+2 can
never equal 5. 5-4 will always equal 1.

> 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.

That's all fine and good -- and it's true of any decent editor equipped with
filters, regardless of the source-material medium. If you take two clips,
one DV-codec-encoded AVI and one DVD-compliant mpeg2, and apply filtering,
the mpeg2 clip will wind up with less accurate data than the DV-25.

>
> 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.

Absolutely! The camcorder manufacturers have made the conscious decision to
de-emphasize quality and focus on crappy gimmicks that result in poorer
video for their consumer lines. I suspect this decision was intended to
protect their more expensive prosumer lines. I didn't want a camera that
cost as much, and was as big and heavy, as my VX2000. I had no choice,
however, because there was simply nothing available in the consumer lines.
Such cameras are clearly possible, however, as the discontinued TRV900
proves.


> 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?

What is interesting is to compare the video quality of the mid-range
consumer Hi8 machines of 10 years ago with that of consumer quality mpeg and
DVD cameras available now. The Hi8 machines produced far better video under
more challenging lighting conditions.


>
> 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?

I think you've hit it on the nose. The problem is that, for those of us
amateurs who want good video quality, the only solution is to spend a lot
more, and carry a bigger and heavier camera, than should be necessary.
There is hope on the horizon, though, in the form of HDV. With
high-definition televisions becoming more ubiquitous, there will be an
increase in demand for consumer HDV machines. By definition, those with
high-def TVs will not be willing to accept the kind of quality compromises
which define the current consumer camcorder market. I think we'll start to
see some decent HDV consumer stuff over the next 5 to 10 years.

>
> AnthonyR
>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: mpeg 2 editing
    ... >> 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 ... > the degraded result of retranscoding mpeg-compressed video is not only ... > cheapie capture cards and DVD and hard-disk consumer camcorders ALREADY ...
    (rec.video.desktop)
  • Re: Editing MPEG-(?)
    ... compliant MPEG is the most useful video format for local distribution. ... either in camera or with a capture card, that can approach the video quality ... hardware transcoders available in consumer camcorders and capture cards. ...
    (rec.video.desktop)
  • Re: Editing MPEG-(?)
    ... compliant MPEG is the most useful video format for local distribution. ... quality of D-25 from a good consumer/prosumer camera. ... encoders used in consumer camcorders and capture cards are inferior to ...
    (rec.video.desktop)
  • Re: Great video but wheres the audio
    ... AVI is audio video interleaved, I think, can't remember the MPEG one, but ... the difference is, very quickly, AVI is a wrapper which can contain many ... MPEG is a compressed file, an hour of dv-avi is 13gb, and hour of real good ... MPEG's are made up of I,Band P frames. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.moviemaker)
  • Re: Looking for DVD camcorder
    ... then it will be identical to the video on the tape. ... you have 25 real frames every second. ... If you add transitions to the edit cut points, then quality will be very, ... Mpeg is compressed to around 20.1. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.video)
Loading