Re: Editing MPEG-(?)


"PTravel" <ptravel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4ikerqF472qeU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:j7qdnQM7o7j3aVnZnZ2dnUVZ_ridnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"PTravel" <ptravel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:FfZwg.137497$H71.34968@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

For most people, at this time; the "Main Profile" and Level DVD
compliant MPEG is the most useful video format for local distribution.
It looks good and is small enough to be useful. It will work in more
playback situations than most other options. (Most importantly the
living/viewing rooms of your friends and relatives.) You can store
a useful amount of it on a DVD and it takes up much less space on
your hard drives. For these reasons and others, even such as our
friend PT, will convert their DV-AVI into MPEG to have something
useful, in the end.

Correct, and what I've said from the beginning of this discussion.


So the best theoretical process would be to have DVD compliant
MPEG source video and a "Native" MPEG editing package that meets
your needs, so that you could quickly and effectively produce useful
output, with the least amount of processing of the image required.

Absolutely wrong conclusion. As you yourself admit, mpeg is a delivery
medium, not a capture or editing medium. Your point about rendering only
manipulated frames in editors is not accurate -- for example, in Premiere
Pro, mpeg source must be rendered first to an internal format before it
can even be viewed on the timeline. DV-codec video does not require this
additional render step. However, with respect to source material, no
consumer/prosumer product (HDV excluded) can caputre mpeg-encoded video,
either in camera or with a capture card, that can approach the video
quality of D-25 from a good consumer/prosumer camera. As noted, the D-25
video is more easily manipulated in editing software (except for dedicated
mpeg editors which are extremely limited in the amount of control
offered). Though the project will, ultimately, be transcoded to mpeg2 for
DVD creation, that transcode process, when done in software, results in
far better video quality than the video produced by the single-pass
on-the-fly hardware transcoders available in consumer camcorders and
capture cards.

That's where your argument falls apart: all mpeg isn't the same.
Multi-pass, high precision, high depth, deep motion search transcoding
will produce better quality video than single-pass, low precision, low
depth, shallow motion search transcoding. Your position would make more
sense if the source mpeg was high quality to begin with. The problem is,
unless you're ripping from a commercial DVD, it is not.


There are still some "editing" tricks that are only available using
video
that has converted to a low level "Color Space" format (RGB, YUV
ect...) and some of them are more likely to be had, cheaply, for
DV-AVI (or MJPEG) "Native" editors.

If you want to call standard editing techniques, such as color correction
and matching, gamma adjustment, compositing, and chroma keying (to name
just a few) as "editing tricks," fine.

That is changing and more and
more such processes are becoming available for reasonably priced
Native MPEG editing.

It has happened yet.


{Space here for PT to insert his Strawman assertion, about how
his 3 CCD Camcorder's DV-25 and his great attention to the
multi-pass encoding process, produces so much better MPEG than
anyone else can.

That's nonsense, and you know it.

That all the hardware real-time encoders must be
inferior.

I never said anything of the sort. I said the kind of hardware real-time
encoders used in consumer camcorders and capture cards are inferior to
readily available and inexpensive software transcoders.

He is trying to use the results from his expensive camera,
as if it indicates what results everyone else will have, if they were
only to follow his advice, no matter what source they must use.}

Anyone with a decent quality consumer miniDV camcoder can produce better
quality video, meaning a better final DVD, than any consumer DVD or
hard-drive camcorder, or consumer mpeg capture card. My "expensive
camera" will produce better video than consumer camcorders (for specific
shooting environments), but that is irrelevant. You, like Martin, assume
all amateurs shoot with low-quality gear and require only low-quality
results.


A real argument would start with the same source and compare
the results of competing processes.

As I've said, repeatedly, I'm only interested in the real world, not the
theoretical maximums that can be achieved with mpeg. In the real world,
outside of a commercial studio environment, D-25 transcoded to mpeg in
software as the final step before authoring will produce markedly better
quality video than mpeg sources, or another source encoded to mpeg prior
to editing.


Well, PT - not EVERYONE has, can afford, needs, or would find
your camera worth the trouble it takes to operate it.

My camera isn't any harder to operate than any high-end consumer
camcorder. However, that's irrelevant to this discussion, which is, not
EVERYONE is satisfied with the inferior video quality produced by low-end
consumer camcorders, DVD camcorders, or hard drive camcorders (and, again,
this excludes HDV camcordes).

They have the
common video sources that they have. They have the cameras that
they have.

Exactly right. And someone with a good, high-end miniDV consumer
camcorder is, evidently, interested enough in video quality to invest
$1,200 to 1,500 in their capture solution. By the way, leaving aside
high-end consumer machines, who do you think buys prosumer gear? You
don't think it's only sold to wedding photographers and low-budget film
makers, do you? What do you think the "sumer" suffix means?

You and Martin are the ones arguing for a one-size-fits-all approach, i.e.
"mpeg uber alles." I recommend mpeg solutions when it's appropriate, e.g.
casual amateurs interested in cuts-only or very simple editing, and D-25
solutions for those who, like me, want better quality.

They can make movies from their video source that retain
most, if not all, of the image quality possible from their source, using
a
process that doesn't have to include being in your DV-AVI format.

I have never, at any time, said that D-25 is the only way to go. You and
Martin, however, persist in recommending mpeg-only solutions in response
to inquiries where, clearly, it would result in an inferior product that
is not desired by the person making the inquiry.


Luck;
Ken



That's it, I'm tired of your cutting out the parts of my post
that you don't want to reply to and that refute the reply you
want to make. I'm tired of your deliberate misinterpretation
and constant assertion of your belief that this is better than
that or that can never be as good as this, without providing
anything to support your assertion. No logical argument,
no valid example in the real world, nothing, you just say it's
so.

And I won't try to carry on a discussion where you continuously
chop up my paragraphs to change the direction of the discussion,
or insert some other red herring.

That's it, this is pointless.

Consumers can have very good results using cameras such as
Sony's HDR-SR1 and other such MPEG format cameras. The
onboard encoding is quite effective. If the consumer is satisfied
with the quality of the MPEG produced by his camera system,
it will be very easy to edit it and produce a DVD of equal quality.
( The image need never be degraded. Not so with your DV-25)

Bye.
Ken





.

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: 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: VCD quality problem AND compatibility issue with DVD players
    ... > quality of the rendered video from a clean AVI file is HORRIBLE. ... > are so many compression artifacts, the video isn't worth watching. ... I downloaded an MPEG ... It appears that files on VCD are not inherently ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.video)
  • Re: Mpeg1 and Mpeg 4
    ... Which is used in Digital Video cameras? ... There have been many MPEG groups over ... > variable bitrate allocation (which optimizes quality). ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsmedia)
  • Re: Optimum settings for TMPGEnc?
    ... the only way to make good DVD Compliant MPEG? ... direct DVD compliant MPEG capture. ... What I've always said was, for maximum video quality, software ...
    (rec.video.desktop)
Loading