Re: TmpGEnc AVI Files Seem WAY Too Large

On Wed, 9 May 2007 15:40:39 -0700, in 'rec.video.desktop',
in article <Re: TmpGEnc AVI Files Seem WAY Too Large>,
"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Frank" wrote ...
But I certainly do recall some comments that you once made about how
no one doing serious work could possibly be using a camcorder that
utilizes MPEG as its acquisition format, a statement which is very,
very untrue.

IIRC, the context was somebodying shooting "video"
with their still camera (or their cell phone).

Here are your comments to which I referred above:

From: "Richard Crowley" <richard.7.crowley@xxxxxxxxx>
Newsgroups: rec.video.desktop
Subject: Re: Editing MPEG-(?)
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 16:18:59 -0700

MPEG2 video is the equivalent of MP3 audio. It has become
a major distribution format for people who are satisfied with
"OK". But nobody does serious production in something so
compressed. Few people think of it as "moving ahead".

And here's the original post from that thread. The OP was not asking
about still camera (or cell phone) video.

From: "couchpotatoe" <pandd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Newsgroups: rec.video.desktop
Subject: Editing MPEG-(?)
Date: 19 Jul 2006 03:35:21 -0700

Is MPEG format editable using whatever video package on a PC. I had
thought that MPEG-2 format was DVD format and the compression made
this non editable?

I note that a number of 2nd hand DV tape camcorders record to MPEG-1
while the newer models record to MPEG EX or something. Are these
formats fundementally different than MPEG-2?

This is a followup to my previous post about "Pass through" function
on Camcorders. Not wanting to convert an analogue signal to digital
only to find that I am not able to "fiddle" with it once on my PC.

XDCAM HD is a long-GOP MPEG-2 format and I doubt that there are many
soccer moms shooting XDCAM HD. Quite the contrary, I suspect that most
XDCAM HD users (and standard def XDCAM users, too, for that matter)
are doing "serious production" (your term) of one sort or another.

So what would you estimate is the percentage of video we see
on broadcast (including cable & DBS) that originated on consumer
MPEG camcorders (mini-DVD & hard drive)?

From consumer-grade Mini-DVD and HDD camcorders, probably less than
0.001 percent at the present time, but this will increase
significantly as more and more stations/channels/services adopt the
concept of user generated video, especially for news stories.

The Current TV cable/satellite channel is composed of about 33 percent
user-submitted programming.

Current TV // The TV Network Created By The People Who Watch It
http://www.current.tv/

The quality varies, but I've seen some pretty well done viewer created
content on Current TV, and I would certainly expect that 90 to 95
percent of it was acquired using run-of-the-mill consumer and prosumer
grade equipment, not on Sony F900's with a crew of six.

Granted, if Echostar
tries to cram many more channels into their transponder bandwidth,
*everything* will look like consumer MPEG and we won't be able to
tell the difference. :-)

Don't complain about your DBS service, please. My "local cable
company" - Time Warner, you may have heard of them - sometimes does
the same thing on certain channels and it makes me want to scream.
More channels is nice, but not at the expense of quality.

As per the generally accepted definition of the term, there is no file
system (and no files) on a Redbook audio CD. Saying that there is a
file system (and files) on a Redbook audio CD is almost like saying
that there are files (and a file system) on a 12-inch vinyl LP disc.
Write to Philips (or Sony) and see what they say, or check various Web
references.

A file system needs a machine-readable and actionable
identification and location reference system (i.e. an "index")
Does a RedBook CD have that? Clearly, it does, or you would
not be able to see how many tracks and their length, etc.

A file system needs a place to store data that can be reached
by the retrieval system (i.e. a storage area where a particular
spot can be automatically located). Does a RedBook CD have
that? Clearly, it does, or you would not have a feature/button to
"skip to the next track".

A file sysem needs some way to detect (and ideally, correct or
at least mitigate) storage/transmission errors. Does RedBook
CD have that? Clearly, it does, or CDs would not be playable.

Is the way RedBook does these things the same as how a
computer would do it on a hard drive or a floppy (or on some
other ColorBook format)? No, clearly not. But then different
computer operating systems (OS, *ix, Mac, and various
generations of MSwin) don't even agree on exactly how to do
these things, either. That doesn't exclude them from being
called "file systems". At least not by my perception.

If you want to provide your own definition of the term file system,
you're welcome to. I'm not going to argue the point, but I must tell
you that you're beginning to sound like the well-intentioned but
uninformed newbie user who talks about copying files off of his
Mini-DV tape to his computer's hard disk drive. There are simply no
files on a Mini-DV video tape.

By the way, one of the distinguishing characteristics of any file
system known to humankind is the ability to track used versus free
space on the media. The Redbook audio CD spec totally lacks this
capability.

Please keep in mind that when the audio CD was developed, there was no
expectation that computer-based playback of such discs would ever be
possible. It simply wasn't contemplated at the time (1979 - 1982).
Only standalone players were considered. Nor was the concept of a
CD-ROM for data storage considered at the time, nor the ability to
"burn" discs (CD-R and CD-RW) in one's own home or office.

Audio CD
http://www.smart-projects.net/help.php?help=490

Regards,

--
Frank, Independent Consultant, New York, NY
[Please remove 'nojunkmail.' from address to reply via e-mail.]
Read Frank's thoughts on HDV at http://www.humanvalues.net/hdv/
.

Loading