Re: Editing MPEG-(?)


"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




.

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