Re: Mini-DV vs Analog to the Desktop - Question...
- From: "PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 09:23:05 -0800
"evieg" <evieg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns970E18A06F6A3eviegnowaycom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Finally - the perception of loss. One loses information with a Digital
> Cam as it only records at 24 frames per second - instead of 60 frames per
> second analog.
As you've been told, repeatedly, this is utterly, completely wrong. MiniDV
and Digital 8 camcorders record 29.97 frames per second, just like analog
cameras. MiniDV and Digital 8 camcorder record just under 60 FIELDS per
seoncd, just like analog cameras.
It's one thing to ask questions. It's another thing to state this clearly
erroneous assertion as fact -- lots of people read this newsgroup and will
think you are right. You are not.
Final time: there is absolutely no difference in frame rate between analog
and digital camcorders.
Okay?
> Perhaps the human eye can be happy with that framerate.
> Ans that is why I asked about quality. You claim DV is better than MPEG2
> - but both are only ways to capture the original video.
You seem to think that digital cameras start with analog video and then do
something to digitize it. That is also wrong.
DV-25 (which is what miniDV and Digital 8 use) is simply a standard for a
data format. By it's nature, it entails compression of the image at,
roughly, a 5-to-1 rate. Image compression has nothing to do with frame
rate.
MPEG2 is a compression standard. Unlike DV-25, which compresses only within
a frame, MPEG2 compresses temporally as well, i.e. frames before and after
the target effect the compression. MPEG2 is capable of fairly high
compression rates, though MPEG2 is also "lossy," i.e. it loses data going
through the compress/decompress cycle. MPEG2 is capable of very high
quality compression, but it requires very high bitrates (which have nothing
to do with frame rates) to achieve it. DVDs specify a maximum bit rate.
When MPEG2 conforms to that bitrate, its quality due to loss is less than
the quality due to loss of DV-25.
And none of this has anything to do with frame rates.
> I can setup
> VirtualDub to capture using my TV-card via the Panasonic DV codec - but
> again it it needs to be brought down for the computer.
>
> My question is - within the camcorder - forgetting the computer - is the
> video crisper using a mini-DV over a Hi8?
This has been answered many, many times in this thread.
Are you just trolling, or are you looking for a different than the ones
you've gotten from everyone who has responded?
>
> thanks
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Plain English explanation of direct show
- Next by Date: Re: Moving Up To Premiere - Questions
- Previous by thread: Re: Mini-DV vs Analog to the Desktop - Question...
- Next by thread: Re: Mini-DV vs Analog to the Desktop - Question...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading