| Author |
Message |
server
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sat Oct 23, 2004 8:17 pm Post subject:
Best way to archive important videos |
|
|
message unavailable
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
David E. Bath
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 23, 2004 8:17 pm Post subject:
Re: Best way to archive important videos |
|
|
In article <4177a572$1_4@127.0.0.1>,
"Terry Quinn" <the_quin@mtco.com> writes:
| Quote: | Don, at DV quality, I think even a 200 meg external harddrive would be only
able to hold about 10-15 hours of video, correct? Aren't mini-DV tapes
cheaper than that?
Terry
"Donald Link" <linkd@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:4tken0hr26rc1fe3jgrl1utpnql2mvnis5@4ax.com...
With the price of external hard drive they make an excellent backup of
the DVD video.
|
I have another suggestion. Use DVDs to store the AVI files as computer
files, not as DVD MPEG2 video. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MCheu
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 23, 2004 10:30 pm Post subject:
Re: What kind of cards are these??? |
|
|
"Tony" <none@none.com> wrote in message news:<a6WdnU_hUZe6TeTcRVn-ow@comcast.com>...
| Quote: | "MCheu" <mpcheu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:endjn056j27tp43lvkmouqifuijm27ppk4@4ax.com...
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:54:29 -0400, "Tony" <none@none.com> wrote:
Hmm, I looked and looked and cannot find a number in a rectangular outline
on either card. As neither of these is has any video tuner output
capability, why would the FCC have any oversight on the technology?
Electrical and electronic devices produce some level of EM radiation
and RF interference. The CRTC in Canada, and the FCC in the USA
regulate communications. Anything that can potentially disrupt
communications would thus fall under their umbrella. All mass
produced electronic/electrics have to be tested and registered.
Anything that produces a high enough EM signature has to be licensed
by them. Whether or not a video tuner is involved is irrelevant.
---------------------------------------------
MCheu
Thanks for that explanation, M. Unfortunately it still does not help me.
Some additional investigation suggests these might be video encoder cards
from Darim Vision. One of their model variants goes by the MPEGator label. I
understand their older cards used these 8x8 chips, so maybe these are early
versions (mid to late 90s) of what they offer now.
|
If you have access to a digital camera and some webspace (maybe create
a geocities account), you could put up some photos of the card and
someone might recognize it. As it is, everybody here can only take
guesses based on your descriptions.
---------------------------------------------
MCheu |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Laurence Payne
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 23, 2004 11:20 pm Post subject:
Re: What kind of cards are these??? |
|
|
Stick it in your computer. It may install automatically and show up
in Device Manager. If not, and the computer just witters on about
an "Unknown device, take it out again. No harm done. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 24, 2004 12:05 am Post subject:
Re: What kind of cards are these??? |
|
|
"MCheu" <mpcheu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:72e0dc8b.0410231030.5cb1cf41@posting.google.com...
| Quote: | "Tony" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:<a6WdnU_hUZe6TeTcRVn-ow@comcast.com>...
"MCheu" <mpcheu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:endjn056j27tp43lvkmouqifuijm27ppk4@4ax.com...
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:54:29 -0400, "Tony" <none@none.com> wrote:
Hmm, I looked and looked and cannot find a number in a rectangular
outline
on either card. As neither of these is has any video tuner output
capability, why would the FCC have any oversight on the technology?
Electrical and electronic devices produce some level of EM radiation
and RF interference. The CRTC in Canada, and the FCC in the USA
regulate communications. Anything that can potentially disrupt
communications would thus fall under their umbrella. All mass
produced electronic/electrics have to be tested and registered.
Anything that produces a high enough EM signature has to be licensed
by them. Whether or not a video tuner is involved is irrelevant.
---------------------------------------------
MCheu
Thanks for that explanation, M. Unfortunately it still does not help me.
Some additional investigation suggests these might be video encoder cards
from Darim Vision. One of their model variants goes by the MPEGator
label. I
understand their older cards used these 8x8 chips, so maybe these are
early
versions (mid to late 90s) of what they offer now.
If you have access to a digital camera and some webspace (maybe create
a geocities account), you could put up some photos of the card and
someone might recognize it. As it is, everybody here can only take
guesses based on your descriptions.
---------------------------------------------
MCheu
|
An excellent idea, M! Follow this link
http://home.comcast.net/~tonyp2/wsb/html/view.cgi-photos.html-.html
You'll see photos of both cards across two pages. Maybe this will help. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J.P.
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 24, 2004 1:46 am Post subject:
Re: What kind of cards are these??? |
|
|
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 16:05:16 -0400, "Tony" <none@none.com> wrote:
Well the first clue should have been the *8x8 inc*.
http://www.8x8.com
It would appear that you have a couple of video conferencing cards not
video capture cards.
J.P.
Help keep the best *Free* Usenet servers running
http://www.readfreenews.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nospam
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 24, 2004 2:57 am Post subject:
Re: Camcorder for security/survellance? |
|
|
If you do use a netcam Like I do monitor my office in fact I have 3 cameras
look at this software from crime catcher.
the reason I say this cause I've tried at least a dozen software products
for this and couldn't find any other than crime catcher that didn't give
false motion readings.
its at http://www.crime-catcher.com
Oh don't get the beta use 3.09 version of it.
Hope this helps
"T.P." <plasticsteak1@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jrHdd.11391$Rf1.5303@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
poldy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 24, 2004 5:30 am Post subject:
Re: future screen popularity |
|
|
In article <PLGdnZVoz8J9SejcRVn-jw@comcast.com>,
"Robert Morein" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
| Quote: | "bernadette" <bernadette.saenz@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ba6f9ebd.0410191847.5c668a35@posting.google.com...
Which one will some out over all of the rest? CRT, LCD, Plasma, rear
projection, or front projection?
Intel has new LCD-on silicon technology that will probably displace most of
these for both front and rear projection.
Coming in 2006.
|
Intel announced they're not coming out with LCOS.
SED anyone? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 24, 2004 5:30 am Post subject:
Re: What kind of cards are these??? |
|
|
"J.P." <J@P.net> wrote in message
news:j2kln0hqj1gbq44d01b0uutn1esiusacjr@4ax.com...
I actually already checked the 8x8 site. It appears they no longer deal in
board based solutions, so I figured I'd try Usenet, before calling them in
the hopes they still have somebody working there who knows anything about a
product they had in the mid-90's.
Given that one of the boards is outfitted with a hardware based encoder and
decoder I wasn't sure if it was possibly a capture card. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J.P.
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 24, 2004 7:11 am Post subject:
Re: What kind of cards are these??? |
|
|
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 21:30:31 -0400, "Tony" <none@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: | I actually already checked the 8x8 site. It appears they no longer deal in
board based solutions, so I figured I'd try Usenet, before calling them in
the hopes they still have somebody working there who knows anything about a
product they had in the mid-90's.
Given that one of the boards is outfitted with a hardware based encoder and
decoder I wasn't sure if it was possibly a capture card.
You have an old obsolete (no longer supported) card that was a |
pre-runner of the newer solutions that they now offer. Notice the
phone jack that is on one of the cards? These cards were for analog to
digital video and audio encode/decode through POTS.
J.P.
Help keep the best *Free* Usenet servers running
http://www.readfreenews.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donald Link
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:05 am Post subject:
Re: Best way to archive important videos |
|
|
On 23 Oct 2004 16:17:32 GMT, davidbath1@bigfoot.com (David E. Bath)
wrote:
| Quote: | In article <4177a572$1_4@127.0.0.1>,
"Terry Quinn" <the_quin@mtco.com> writes:
Don, at DV quality, I think even a 200 meg external harddrive would be only
able to hold about 10-15 hours of video, correct? Aren't mini-DV tapes
cheaper than that?
Terry
"Donald Link" <linkd@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:4tken0hr26rc1fe3jgrl1utpnql2mvnis5@4ax.com...
With the price of external hard drive they make an excellent backup of
the DVD video.
I have another suggestion. Use DVDs to store the AVI files as computer
files, not as DVD MPEG2 video.
That is a good suggestion but a couple of problems may come up. |
Mostly AVI files are not edited and you will need to redo it if you
want to replace the rendered movie. Plus a lot of the AVI files are
much bigger that will fit on DVD disk and you will have to split them.
Then again you may use multiple AVI captured files to use parts to
make a movie. You may take a lot of footage you do not need for the
final production. I think the best is to figure what you really want
to back up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Terry Quinn
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 25, 2004 2:52 am Post subject:
Re: Best way to archive important videos |
|
|
David,
That is a good suggestion. With Pinnacle, I could cut the original scenes
into files that fit on a DVD, and then pull them back onto the computer and
re-combine later if needed. Obviously it would require a lot more DVDs, and
that is probably more expensive than putting them on tape, but for the time
being until I get a DV tape platform, that could be a good interim solution.
Thanks,
Terry
"David E. Bath" <davidbath1@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:cle06s0hii@news3.newsguy.com...
| Quote: |
I have another suggestion. Use DVDs to store the AVI files as computer
files, not as DVD MPEG2 video.
|
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paweber02
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 25, 2004 3:27 am Post subject:
Re: Pan and scan |
|
|
| Quote: | Alex
Thanks for the concise explanation. I'm an engineer and we like details.
Brooks
Alex wrote:
Take a "standard" movie that is shot in 16x9 format. Technically in
the film world there are various degrees of this format, cinemascope,
super 70, etc... For this discussion let's just talk about the basics
of 16x9 widescreen footage and how they work in a 4x3 world.
Before the 90's, most TV sets were what is now termed as "fullscreen"
sets. This means that they are more like a square than a rectangle. So
for every 4 pixels across there are 3 up. This can also be portrayed
in the ratio of 640x480.
In the 16x9 world there are 16 pixels across for every 9 up, thus
creating a more rectangular picture than the more square 4x3 set up.
The problem: How do you fit a 16x9 movie into a 4x3 TV set.
The Answer: You don't, you Pan and Scan it. Or you can "letterbox "
it, let's look at panning ansd scanning first.
If I had a piece of paper it would be way easier, but here goes.
Take the movie "A League of Their Own", it starred Gena Davis, Rosie
O'Donell, and other notables. I use this because the last time I saw
this on TV the Pan and Scan was very very noticeable.
The original movie was made to air in a theatre which is much wider
than it is high and when broadcast they need to actuallty pan the
movie to see all of the action on the sides. In our example, the
baseball field has many players and bases. At times there is key
action that happens on the extreme left or right of the screen. If the
film was not "panned" over to the action we would miss it on the 4x3
screen. So the movie is moved to the left to allow viewers in the 4x3
world see the action that would have been missed other wise. It's like
moving a piece of paper around underneath a magnifying glass to see
the corners of the paper becasue a normal magnifying glass is not as
big as a piece of paper.
So before a major movie can be viewed in 4x3 it undergoes an edit
session where it is pannned and scanned for principal action.
A way to avoid this and a better solution is to "letterbox" the movie.
This way the majority of the 16x9 aspect ratio is preserved but the
movie is squeesed back to fit in the screen, thus the two black bars
at the top and the bottom. For me this is the preffered solution
because now we will get to see all of the action, no matter what.
I used to Pan and Scan all the time for a National Broadcaster. I
perfected the art of "hiding" the pan by timing it with camera moves
and natural edits.
I hope this helps, sorry for the long answer, I am sure someone else
could have done better.
Alex
Blue House Media/AB Productions
|
I'm sure you have the gist of it now. But...
There is no such thing as a "standard movie filmed in the 16x9 format." (It is
not a format anyway, but an aspect ratio.) There is no such motion picture
aspect ratio. Never has been. Still isn't. 16:9 is a compromise (among the
video, movie, and hardware manufacturers) reached several years ago precisely
because there was no video, motion picture, or still camera that used that
aspect ratio. The "Academny" aperature aspect ratio (sound-on-film 35mm
theatrical prints) is are several "70mm" (65mm camera film) formats with aspect
ratios randing from 2.85:1 to 2:15:1; etc., etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matt
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 25, 2004 2:56 pm Post subject:
Re: Pan and scan |
|
|
iwsolutions@email.com (Alex) wrote in message news:<1d09319b.0410122008.2d9598d5@posting.google.com>...
| Quote: | Take a "standard" movie that is shot in 16x9 format. Technically in
the film world there are various degrees of this format, cinemascope,
super 70, etc... For this discussion let's just talk about the basics
of 16x9 widescreen footage and how they work in a 4x3 world.
Before the 90's, most TV sets were what is now termed as "fullscreen"
sets. This means that they are more like a square than a rectangle. So
for every 4 pixels across there are 3 up. This can also be portrayed
in the ratio of 640x480.
In the 16x9 world there are 16 pixels across for every 9 up, thus
creating a more rectangular picture than the more square 4x3 set up.
The problem: How do you fit a 16x9 movie into a 4x3 TV set.
The Answer: You don't, you Pan and Scan it. Or you can "letterbox "
it, let's look at panning ansd scanning first.
If I had a piece of paper it would be way easier, but here goes.
Take the movie "A League of Their Own", it starred Gena Davis, Rosie
O'Donell, and other notables. I use this because the last time I saw
this on TV the Pan and Scan was very very noticeable.
The original movie was made to air in a theatre which is much wider
than it is high and when broadcast they need to actuallty pan the
movie to see all of the action on the sides. In our example, the
baseball field has many players and bases. At times there is key
action that happens on the extreme left or right of the screen. If the
film was not "panned" over to the action we would miss it on the 4x3
screen. So the movie is moved to the left to allow viewers in the 4x3
world see the action that would have been missed other wise. It's like
moving a piece of paper around underneath a magnifying glass to see
the corners of the paper becasue a normal magnifying glass is not as
big as a piece of paper.
So before a major movie can be viewed in 4x3 it undergoes an edit
session where it is pannned and scanned for principal action.
A way to avoid this and a better solution is to "letterbox" the movie.
This way the majority of the 16x9 aspect ratio is preserved but the
movie is squeesed back to fit in the screen, thus the two black bars
at the top and the bottom. For me this is the preffered solution
because now we will get to see all of the action, no matter what.
I used to Pan and Scan all the time for a National Broadcaster. I
perfected the art of "hiding" the pan by timing it with camera moves
and natural edits.
I hope this helps, sorry for the long answer, I am sure someone else
could have done better.
Alex
Blue House Media/AB Productions
|
Nice response. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigmoney
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:37 am Post subject:
Re: SELL this FBI NOC LIST and MAKE MILLIONS like TOM CRUISE |
|
|
Now why don't you tell us the truth?! Here I'll start, You don't have
a problem with the fbi, it can all be blamed on 2 things...
Either its
a: President bush
b: Jews
Its seems to me that EVERYTHING bad that has happended in history is
blamed on either President Bush, or Jewish People! Think about it
World war 1 and 2..president Bushes fault, Obviously!
Korea, Vietnam and the civil war...The Jews!
Do you see how ridiculous this is?... Thats how stupid your last post
was!
Go be a moron somewhere else,
Willy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in