| Author |
Message |
evieg
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 3:58 am Post subject:
Mini-DV vs Analog to the Desktop - Question... |
|
|
I have an analog setup for my computer. I use a scan converter to send
the signal from the computer to my VCR - and use a TV-Card to capture
from my analog camcorder. I am wondering about quality of Mini-DV versus
analog and also time involved in transferring video.
I am guessing that because Mini-DV is a tape format - that transfer to
the computer is in real-time. In other words if one records 15 minutes
of video - it takes 15 minutes to transfer it to the computer. While it
is a digital format - it needs to play the file to the computer to be
captured via the firewire card.
This then is at the rate of 1GB per 4 minutes. So two hours of recording
would take a HD of 30GB to handle the transfer. Once transferred one
would still need to re-encode the file to a smaller medium so that two
hours could fit on a DVD say - a rate of about 7200Kbits plus Dolby for
an effective rate of about 8000Kbits give or take a bit.
Of course folks do not shoot perfectly - so one needs to edit the video -
before transferring to video - etc. I hope I am guessing right about DV.
I use analog to capture in. I then digitize the analog on first playback
to the computer by running it through the TV-Card in S-video. I set the
MPEG2 encoder in the TV-Card to encode at 72000Kbits using Dolby - with
an all I-frame capture. I edit the file using VirtualDub-MPEG2 - and
save the edited file using Xvid at 1500Kbits for the computer.
So I am wondering - is there a substantial difference in quality that one
can perceive with the naked eye of Mini-DV over Analog - knowing that
most folks still have regular TV's and most folks do not want 30GB files
on their computers - so they bring them down to small sizes?
Thanks
- really have been thinking about miniDV - but it only records in 24fps
per second instead of 29.97fps like analog does.So it is bound to lose
some information when recording in the real world - to-wit five frames
per second - or 300 frames per minute - or 36,000 frames in a two hour
recording. Just does not seem as good - but nice.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
evieg
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 4:24 am Post subject:
Re: Mini-DV vs Analog to the Desktop - Question... |
|
|
evieg <evieg@noway.com> wrote in
news:Xns970C284DF84D9eviegnowaycom@207.217.125.201:
| Quote: | I have an analog setup for my computer. I use a scan converter to
send the signal from the computer to my VCR - and use a TV-Card to
capture from my analog camcorder. I am wondering about quality of
Mini-DV versus analog and also time involved in transferring video.
I am guessing that because Mini-DV is a tape format - that transfer to
the computer is in real-time. In other words if one records 15
minutes of video - it takes 15 minutes to transfer it to the computer.
While it is a digital format - it needs to play the file to the
computer to be captured via the firewire card.
This then is at the rate of 1GB per 4 minutes. So two hours of
recording would take a HD of 30GB to handle the transfer. Once
transferred one would still need to re-encode the file to a smaller
medium so that two hours could fit on a DVD say - a rate of about
7200Kbits plus Dolby for an effective rate of about 8000Kbits give or
take a bit.
Of course folks do not shoot perfectly - so one needs to edit the
video - before transferring to video - etc. I hope I am guessing
right about DV.
I use analog to capture in. I then digitize the analog on first
playback to the computer by running it through the TV-Card in S-video.
I set the MPEG2 encoder in the TV-Card to encode at 72000Kbits using
Dolby - with an all I-frame capture. I edit the file using
VirtualDub-MPEG2 - and save the edited file using Xvid at 1500Kbits
for the computer.
So I am wondering - is there a substantial difference in quality that
one can perceive with the naked eye of Mini-DV over Analog - knowing
that most folks still have regular TV's and most folks do not want
30GB files on their computers - so they bring them down to small
sizes?
Thanks
- really have been thinking about miniDV - but it only records in
24fps per second instead of 29.97fps like analog does.So it is bound
to lose some information when recording in the real world - to-wit
five frames per second - or 300 frames per minute - or 36,000 frames
in a two hour recording. Just does not seem as good - but nice.
|
I am answering myself on a point about lost frames - I am old enough to
remember the "Zabruder Tapes" - (think right name/spelling) - concerning
President Kennedy - his tapes lost information in comparison to TV as he
was a home photographer - yet the tapes have been reviewed forever. So
sometimes a few frames lost does matter. And I just want to capture as
much of life that I can see - even if just a split second more.
Movies as you know are just a bunch os still photographs played back fast
enough to make it think you are seeing movement - etc. etc.
But certain things do happen in a split second - and DV seems slow.
thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PTRAVEL
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:13 am Post subject:
Re: Mini-DV vs Analog to the Desktop - Question... |
|
|
"evieg" <evieg@noway.com> wrote in message
news:Xns970C284DF84D9eviegnowaycom@207.217.125.201...
| Quote: | I have an analog setup for my computer. I use a scan converter to send
the signal from the computer to my VCR - and use a TV-Card to capture
from my analog camcorder. I am wondering about quality of Mini-DV versus
analog and also time involved in transferring video.
|
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to do. There are programs available
(including a free program from Microsoft) that will capture a window on your
desktop to an AVI file.
| Quote: |
I am guessing that because Mini-DV is a tape format - that transfer to
the computer is in real-time. In other words if one records 15 minutes
of video - it takes 15 minutes to transfer it to the computer. While it
is a digital format - it needs to play the file to the computer to be
captured via the firewire card.
|
That's correct.
| Quote: |
This then is at the rate of 1GB per 4 minutes. So two hours of recording
would take a HD of 30GB to handle the transfer.
|
DV-25 (which is what miniDV is) uses 13.7 gigabytes per hour, so you'd need
28 gig of free space to store 2 hours of DV-codec-encoded AVI video.
| Quote: | Once transferred one
would still need to re-encode the file to a smaller medium so that two
hours could fit on a DVD say - a rate of about 7200Kbits plus Dolby for
an effective rate of about 8000Kbits give or take a bit.
|
The term is "transcode," but that's also correct. You can't fit 2 hours of
video on a video DVD at a bit rate of 8k. My recollection is you will need
a CBR of around 4500 to do this.
If you're not going to do any serious editing, you might look at capturing
direct to mpeg.
| Quote: |
Of course folks do not shoot perfectly - so one needs to edit the video -
before transferring to video - etc. I hope I am guessing right about DV.
|
How much editing do you plan to do? Simple cuts can be done in mpeg.
Transitions, corrections, titles, etc. would be better handled using
DV-codec-encoded AVI.
| Quote: | I use analog to capture in. I then digitize the analog on first playback
to the computer by running it through the TV-Card in S-video. I set the
MPEG2 encoder in the TV-Card to encode at 72000Kbits using Dolby - with
an all I-frame capture. I edit the file using VirtualDub-MPEG2 - and
save the edited file using Xvid at 1500Kbits for the computer.
So I am wondering - is there a substantial difference in quality that one
can perceive with the naked eye of Mini-DV over Analog - knowing that
most folks still have regular TV's and most folks do not want 30GB files
on their computers - so they bring them down to small sizes?
|
If your source material is VHS (which seems to be what you're doing), I
don't know if you'll realize any significant quality gain by using DV-codec
material.
| Quote: |
Thanks
- really have been thinking about miniDV - but it only records in 24fps
per second instead of 29.97fps like analog does.
|
That's wrong. Some cameras have a 24 (and 25) fps mode for compatibility
with film, but all DV-25 NTSC-standard camcorders record at 29.97 fps.
| Quote: | So it is bound to lose
some information when recording in the real world - to-wit five frames
per second - or 300 frames per minute - or 36,000 frames in a two hour
recording. Just does not seem as good - but nice.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PTRAVEL
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:19 am Post subject:
Re: Mini-DV vs Analog to the Desktop - Question... |
|
|
"evieg" <evieg@noway.com> wrote in message
news:Xns970C2CADDD11Ceviegnowaycom@207.217.125.201...
| Quote: | evieg <evieg@noway.com> wrote in
news:Xns970C284DF84D9eviegnowaycom@207.217.125.201:
I am answering myself on a point about lost frames - I am old enough to
remember the "Zabruder Tapes" - (think right name/spelling) - concerning
President Kennedy - his tapes lost information in comparison to TV as he
was a home photographer - yet the tapes have been reviewed forever.
|
Unfortunately, you've given yourself the wrong answer. ;)
As I recall, the Zapruder film was shot with a home 8mm movie camera. 8mm
movie film is 16 frames per second (and grainy as hell because of the very
small frame area). Proper digitization of 8mm movie film can smooth out the
grain, fix gamma problems and, on the whole, actually improve the perceived
image.
| Quote: | So
sometimes a few frames lost does matter. And I just want to capture as
much of life that I can see - even if just a split second more.
Movies as you know are just a bunch os still photographs played back fast
enough to make it think you are seeing movement - etc. etc.
|
So is video.
| Quote: |
But certain things do happen in a split second - and DV seems slow.
|
Um, no, DV is not slow. NTSC video is 29.97 _frames_ per second, but each
frame is consists of 2 fields, one containing the odd and the other the even
scan lines. The effective field rate is twice the frame rate, or
approximately 60 fields per second.
Compare that with "home movies" with an effective rate of 16 frames per
second and, not surprisingly, video movement looks much smoother.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
evieg
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 12:07 pm Post subject:
Re: Mini-DV vs Analog to the Desktop - Question... |
|
|
"PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:3tkmt4Ft64giU1@individual.net:
| Quote: |
"evieg" <evieg@noway.com> wrote in message
news:Xns970C284DF84D9eviegnowaycom@207.217.125.201...
I have an analog setup for my computer. I use a scan converter to
send the signal from the computer to my VCR - and use a TV-Card to
capture from my analog camcorder. I am wondering about quality of
Mini-DV versus analog and also time involved in transferring video.
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to do. There are programs
available (including a free program from Microsoft) that will capture
a window on your desktop to an AVI file.
I am guessing that because Mini-DV is a tape format - that transfer
to the computer is in real-time. In other words if one records 15
minutes of video - it takes 15 minutes to transfer it to the
computer. While it is a digital format - it needs to play the file
to the computer to be captured via the firewire card.
That's correct.
This then is at the rate of 1GB per 4 minutes. So two hours of
recording would take a HD of 30GB to handle the transfer.
DV-25 (which is what miniDV is) uses 13.7 gigabytes per hour, so you'd
need 28 gig of free space to store 2 hours of DV-codec-encoded AVI
video.
Once transferred one
would still need to re-encode the file to a smaller medium so that
two hours could fit on a DVD say - a rate of about 7200Kbits plus
Dolby for an effective rate of about 8000Kbits give or take a bit.
The term is "transcode," but that's also correct. You can't fit 2
hours of video on a video DVD at a bit rate of 8k. My recollection is
you will need a CBR of around 4500 to do this.
If you're not going to do any serious editing, you might look at
capturing direct to mpeg.
Of course folks do not shoot perfectly - so one needs to edit the
video - before transferring to video - etc. I hope I am guessing
right about DV.
How much editing do you plan to do? Simple cuts can be done in mpeg.
Transitions, corrections, titles, etc. would be better handled using
DV-codec-encoded AVI.
I use analog to capture in. I then digitize the analog on first
playback to the computer by running it through the TV-Card in
S-video. I set the MPEG2 encoder in the TV-Card to encode at
72000Kbits using Dolby - with an all I-frame capture. I edit the
file using VirtualDub-MPEG2 - and save the edited file using Xvid at
1500Kbits for the computer.
So I am wondering - is there a substantial difference in quality that
one can perceive with the naked eye of Mini-DV over Analog - knowing
that most folks still have regular TV's and most folks do not want
30GB files on their computers - so they bring them down to small
sizes?
If your source material is VHS (which seems to be what you're doing),
I don't know if you'll realize any significant quality gain by using
DV-codec material.
Thanks
- really have been thinking about miniDV - but it only records in
24fps per second instead of 29.97fps like analog does.
That's wrong. Some cameras have a 24 (and 25) fps mode for
compatibility with film, but all DV-25 NTSC-standard camcorders record
at 29.97 fps.
So it is bound to lose
some information when recording in the real world - to-wit five
frames per second - or 300 frames per minute - or 36,000 frames in a
two hour recording. Just does not seem as good - but nice.
|
Thanks for the answer - but I sidetracked myself by raising different
points other than the thrust of the question - which is quality of video.
The mini-dv camcorders I have looked at all report a frame rate of 24fps
Progressive as their true rate - not the 60fps found in NTSC standard
(the odd-even field) - which means even if your stated point of 29.97fps
correct and progressive - then DV loses 1/2 of all available material
compared to NTSC.
That point aside - the issue is still one of quality. Does the single
frame of DV look better than the single frame of a Hi8 camcorder? I
believe DV has 500 lines of resolution versus 400 lines of resolution for
Hi8, and while the extra lines would seem to indicate a better picture -
can one perceive the difference on a standard television?
thank you |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
evieg
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 12:18 pm Post subject:
Re: Mini-DV vs Analog to the Desktop - Question... |
|
|
evieg <evieg@noway.com> wrote in
news:Xns970C7B4555FE4eviegnowaycom@207.217.125.201:
| Quote: | "PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:3tkmt4Ft64giU1@individual.net:
"evieg" <evieg@noway.com> wrote in message
news:Xns970C284DF84D9eviegnowaycom@207.217.125.201...
I have an analog setup for my computer. I use a scan converter to
send the signal from the computer to my VCR - and use a TV-Card to
capture from my analog camcorder. I am wondering about quality of
Mini-DV versus analog and also time involved in transferring video.
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to do. There are programs
available (including a free program from Microsoft) that will capture
a window on your desktop to an AVI file.
I am guessing that because Mini-DV is a tape format - that transfer
to the computer is in real-time. In other words if one records 15
minutes of video - it takes 15 minutes to transfer it to the
computer. While it is a digital format - it needs to play the file
to the computer to be captured via the firewire card.
That's correct.
This then is at the rate of 1GB per 4 minutes. So two hours of
recording would take a HD of 30GB to handle the transfer.
DV-25 (which is what miniDV is) uses 13.7 gigabytes per hour, so
you'd need 28 gig of free space to store 2 hours of DV-codec-encoded
AVI video.
Once transferred one
would still need to re-encode the file to a smaller medium so that
two hours could fit on a DVD say - a rate of about 7200Kbits plus
Dolby for an effective rate of about 8000Kbits give or take a bit.
The term is "transcode," but that's also correct. You can't fit 2
hours of video on a video DVD at a bit rate of 8k. My recollection
is you will need a CBR of around 4500 to do this.
If you're not going to do any serious editing, you might look at
capturing direct to mpeg.
Of course folks do not shoot perfectly - so one needs to edit the
video - before transferring to video - etc. I hope I am guessing
right about DV.
How much editing do you plan to do? Simple cuts can be done in mpeg.
Transitions, corrections, titles, etc. would be better handled using
DV-codec-encoded AVI.
I use analog to capture in. I then digitize the analog on first
playback to the computer by running it through the TV-Card in
S-video. I set the MPEG2 encoder in the TV-Card to encode at
72000Kbits using Dolby - with an all I-frame capture. I edit the
file using VirtualDub-MPEG2 - and save the edited file using Xvid at
1500Kbits for the computer.
So I am wondering - is there a substantial difference in quality
that one can perceive with the naked eye of Mini-DV over Analog -
knowing that most folks still have regular TV's and most folks do
not want 30GB files on their computers - so they bring them down to
small sizes?
If your source material is VHS (which seems to be what you're doing),
I don't know if you'll realize any significant quality gain by using
DV-codec material.
Thanks
- really have been thinking about miniDV - but it only records in
24fps per second instead of 29.97fps like analog does.
That's wrong. Some cameras have a 24 (and 25) fps mode for
compatibility with film, but all DV-25 NTSC-standard camcorders
record at 29.97 fps.
So it is bound to lose
some information when recording in the real world - to-wit five
frames per second - or 300 frames per minute - or 36,000 frames in a
two hour recording. Just does not seem as good - but nice.
Thanks for the answer - but I sidetracked myself by raising different
points other than the thrust of the question - which is quality of
video.
The mini-dv camcorders I have looked at all report a frame rate of
24fps Progressive as their true rate - not the 60fps found in NTSC
standard (the odd-even field) - which means even if your stated point
of 29.97fps correct and progressive - then DV loses 1/2 of all
available material compared to NTSC.
That point aside - the issue is still one of quality. Does the single
frame of DV look better than the single frame of a Hi8 camcorder? I
believe DV has 500 lines of resolution versus 400 lines of resolution
for Hi8, and while the extra lines would seem to indicate a better
picture - can one perceive the difference on a standard television?
thank you
|
A followup point - within the MPEG2 TV-Chip I have the option to record
the incoming at source rate - which gives me a rate of almost 60fps - but
I rarely do so because too large of a file - so I blend the fields on
capture giving a rate of 29.97fps - but when the 60fps progressive is
used it is extremely sharp - such also extremely large. Again - the
single frame quality I would be thinking of.
thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PTravel
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 12:28 pm Post subject:
Re: Mini-DV vs Analog to the Desktop - Question... |
|
|
"evieg" <evieg@noway.com> wrote in message
news:Xns970C7B4555FE4eviegnowaycom@207.217.125.201...
| Quote: |
Thanks for the answer - but I sidetracked myself by raising different
points other than the thrust of the question - which is quality of video.
The mini-dv camcorders I have looked at all report a frame rate of 24fps
Progressive as their true rate - not the 60fps found in NTSC standard
(the odd-even field) - which means even if your stated point of 29.97fps
correct and progressive - then DV loses 1/2 of all available material
compared to NTSC.
|
As I've already told you, some miniDV cameras have a 24 fps progressive mode
for compatibility with applications that are going to wind up on film --
these allow for a one-to-one transfer of video frame to film frame.
Generally, these tend to be higher-end prosumer and professional models, as
there's no reason why a consumer would need a 24 fps progressive mode.
However, _ALL_ NTSC miniDV (and Hi8, VHS, DVD, etc.) camcorders shoot at
29.97 frames per second, which is approximately 60 FIELDS (not frames) per
second. DV doesn't "lose" any available material. I don't think you
understand how NTSC interlaced video works. Every 1/60th of a second half
the scan lines are displayed, first the odd lines and then, 1/60th of a
second later, the even lines. Every 1/30th of a second, an entire FRAME is
displayed. Every 1/60th of a second, one FIELD is displayed.
| Quote: |
That point aside - the issue is still one of quality. Does the single
frame of DV look better than the single frame of a Hi8 camcorder?]
|
Lots of factors determine the relative quality of a video image. MiniDV is
capable of 525 lines of resolution. Hi8 tops out at around 450 lines.
However, a cheap miniDV camcorder with small sensors, poor electronics and
poor optics will not produce as good an image as a good Hi8 camcorder with
large sensors, good electronics and high-quality optics.
A good miniDV camcorder (I use a Sony VX2000, which is a very good
camcorder) will produce stunning video that is of much better quality than
any consumer or prosumer Hi8 camcorder.
| Quote: | I
believe DV has 500 lines of resolution versus 400 lines of resolution for
Hi8,
|
As I said, miniDV can achieve 525 lines, and Hi8 tops out around 450.
| Quote: | and while the extra lines would seem to indicate a better picture -
can one perceive the difference on a standard television?
|
What is a "standard television"? Obviously, the television is a limiting
factor. If you have a K-Mart blue light special 12" Goldstar that you
bought for $49, probably not. If you have a Sony Wega 25", absolutely.
The problem is, there are many, many variables that are going to determine
how good your video looks. However, all things being equal, a
_high-quality_ miniDV camcorder, e.g. a Sony VX2000/2100, Canon XL2, etc.,
will produce a far, far better image than a comparable Hi8 machine. These
cameras have been used to produce commercial films (Open Water was partially
shot with a stock VX2000. 28 Days Later was shot with XL2s that were
modified to accept very high quality lenses). The BBC uses VX2000s for ENG,
though with their audio sections modified to bypass the AGC.
If you're talking about inexpensive consumer camcorders, all bets are off --
some of the older Hi8 machines produce better video than modern cheapie
miniDV machines.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PTravel
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 12:53 pm Post subject:
Re: Mini-DV vs Analog to the Desktop - Question... |
|
|
"evieg" <evieg@noway.com> wrote in message
news:Xns970C7D0A7F95Beviegnowaycom@207.217.125.201...
| Quote: | A followup point - within the MPEG2 TV-Chip I have the option to record
the incoming at source rate - which gives me a rate of almost 60fps - but
I rarely do so because too large of a file - so I blend the fields on
capture giving a rate of 29.97fps - but when the 60fps progressive is
used it is extremely sharp - such also extremely large. Again - the
single frame quality I would be thinking of.
|
You're confusing a lot of different concepts, here. Mpeg is a compression
format, nothing more. If you try to capture an NTSC source at 60 fps,
you're not adding quality or sharpness, because NTSC video is 29.97 fps.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Crowley
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 12:53 pm Post subject:
Re: Mini-DV vs Analog to the Desktop - Question... |
|
|
"evieg" wrote ...
| Quote: | I have an analog setup for my computer. I use a scan converter
to send the signal from the computer to my VCR -
|
Why? And what does this have to do with the rest of the question?
| Quote: | and use a TV-Card to capture
from my analog camcorder. I am wondering about quality of
Mini-DV versus analog and also time involved in transferring
video.
I am guessing that because Mini-DV is a tape format -
|
Yes.
| Quote: | that transfer to the computer is in real-time. In other words
if one records 15 minutes of video - it takes 15 minutes to
transfer it to the computer.
|
Yes, because the tape transport runs only at real-time rate.
If the same DV data were on some other medium (hard drive
or data tape), the transfer could go much faster.
| Quote: | While it is a digital format - it needs to play the file to the
computer to be captured via the firewire card.
|
Well no. The firewire card could capture much faster,
but the tape transport in the camcorder can run at only
one speed.
| Quote: | This then is at the rate of 1GB per 4 minutes. So two
hours of recording would take a HD of 30GB to handle
the transfer.
|
Close. The rule-of-thumb is 13.7GB/hour.
| Quote: | Once transferred one would still need to re-encode the file
to a smaller medium so that two hours could fit on a DVD
say - a rate of about 7200Kbits plus Dolby for an effective
rate of about 8000Kbits give or take a bit.
|
Sort of. You need to transcode from DV to MPEG2 becase
MPEG2 is the only codec that can be read by all DVD players.
| Quote: | Of course folks do not shoot perfectly - so one needs to edit
the video - before transferring to video - etc. I hope I am
guessing right about DV.
|
The video codec does not change the standard video production
workflow, including the need for editing, etc.
| Quote: | I use analog to capture in. I then digitize the analog on first
playback
to the computer by running it through the TV-Card in S-video. I set
the
MPEG2 encoder in the TV-Card to encode at 72000Kbits using Dolby -
with an all I-frame capture. I edit the file using VirtualDub-MPEG2 -
and save the edited file using Xvid at 1500Kbits for the computer.
So I am wondering - is there a substantial difference in quality that
one
can perceive with the naked eye of Mini-DV over Analog -
|
DV is significantly better than MPEG2.
Not sure what you are calling "analog"?
| Quote: | knowing that most folks still have regular TV's and most
folks do not want 30GB files on their computers - so they
bring them down to small sizes?
|
They "bring them down to small sizes" because DVD
distribution *requires* encoding in MPEG2.
| Quote: | - really have been thinking about miniDV - but it only
records in 24fps per second instead of 29.97fps like
analog does.
|
You need better source of information. NTSC DV runs
at 29.97FPS by definition. PAL DV runs at 24 FPS
(because that is the framerate for PAL).
| Quote: | So it is bound to lose some information when recording
in the real world - to-wit five frames per second - or
300 frames per minute - or 36,000 frames in a two hour
recording. Just does not seem as good - but nice.
|
This is a very strange "understanding" of what different
framerates do. Do you miss those 36,000 frames when
you go to see a 2 hour movie? Do you ask for part of
your ticket price back? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Crowley
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 12:58 pm Post subject:
Re: Mini-DV vs Analog to the Desktop - Question... |
|
|
"evieg" wrote in message
| Quote: | I am answering myself on a point about lost frames - I am old enough
to
remember the "Zabruder Tapes" - (think right name/spelling) -
concerning
President Kennedy - his tapes lost information in comparison to TV as
he
was a home photographer - yet the tapes have been reviewed forever.
So
sometimes a few frames lost does matter. And I just want to capture
as
much of life that I can see - even if just a split second more.
|
How you intend to view what you capture? If you want
to use conventional video equipment, you will use the
standard framerate (~30 FPS for NTSC, 24 FPS for PAL)
| Quote: | Movies as you know are just a bunch os still photographs
played back fast enough to make it think you are seeing
movement - etc. etc.
|
Do you think that video works on some different scheme?
| Quote: | But certain things do happen in a split second - and DV
seems slow.
|
Maybe you should re-read this in the morning when you
can think about it clearly. The Zapruder film was 18 FPS
which is significantly slower than ANY DV ever seen on
this planet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Crowley
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 1:07 pm Post subject:
Re: Mini-DV vs Analog to the Desktop - Question... |
|
|
"evieg" wrote...
| Quote: | The mini-dv camcorders I have looked at all report a frame rate of
24fps
Progressive as their true rate - not the 60fps found in NTSC standard
(the odd-even field) - which means even if your stated point of
29.97fps
correct and progressive - then DV loses 1/2 of all available material
compared to NTSC.
|
What camcorders are you looking at?
Where are you? Do you live in NTSC-land?,
Or do you live in the PAL territories?
I've never seen a standard NTSC DV camcorder that ran
at any rate except the NTSC standard of 29.97 FPS. There
are some HD cameras which run at 24 FPS so you can get
that "flim look" Don't you find it remarkable how well
Hollywood films seem to do even after "loosing 1/2 of all
available material"?
| Quote: | That point aside - the issue is still one of quality. Does
the single frame of DV look better than the single frame
of a Hi8 camcorder?
|
Depends on the quality of the camera and lens.
Not really a function of the format of the tape.
There were likely some Hi8 camcorders which
produced better pictures than many DV camcorders.
But there are many DV camcorders that beat the
socks off most Hi8 camcorders.
| Quote: | I
believe DV has 500 lines of resolution versus 400 lines of resolution
for
Hi8, and while the extra lines would seem to indicate a better
picture -
can one perceive the difference on a standard television?
|
Yes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ken Maltby
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 1:13 pm Post subject:
Re: Mini-DV vs Analog to the Desktop - Question... |
|
|
"evieg" <evieg@noway.com> wrote in message
news:Xns970C284DF84D9eviegnowaycom@207.217.125.201...
| Quote: | I have an analog setup for my computer. I use a scan converter to send
the signal from the computer to my VCR -
|
Why would you do that? What format was your video, on your
computer, before you sent it to your VCR? You realize that there
are no Analog signals maintained within the computer. The only
analog signals are the inputs or outputs of A/D or D/A conversions.
The computer itself only works with digital data on digital chips. The
video and sound cards convert digital data to an analog signal at the
last stage just before the video or sound signals are output.
| Quote: | and use a TV-Card to capture from my analog camcorder.
|
TV Cards are not often that good as capture cards, what are
the A/D and Encoder chips on the card? Does it have at least
one fast video memory chip?
| Quote: | I am wondering about quality of Mini-DV versus
analog and also time involved in transferring video.
|
First there is a large range of both analog and Mini-DV
cameras. So you could have an analog camera that is
superior to the least of the Mini-DV cameras. And the
quality of the images captured by the camera is more
important than the processing that follows.
While the Mini-DV format is just now being challenged
by the new HD offerings, it is still a considerable
improvement over the earlier consumer analog camcorder
formats. ( I'm assuming you don't have a TV studio RGB
camera.)
| Quote: | I am guessing that because Mini-DV is a tape format - that transfer to
the computer is in real-time. In other words if one records 15 minutes
of video - it takes 15 minutes to transfer it to the computer. While it
is a digital format - it needs to play the file to the computer to be
captured via the firewire card.
|
The digital transfer, or copying, from a Mini-DV camera to
your computer over the Firewire, is not a capture. It is more
like coping a file from an external hard drive. But as you
noted, it is limited by the tape mechanism's read speed.
( Now if you were to encode to another format, like MPEG
or Xvid while doing the Firewire transfer, you could call that a
capture.)
| Quote: | This then is at the rate of 1GB per 4 minutes. So two hours of recording
would take a HD of 30GB to handle the transfer. Once transferred one
would still need to re-encode the file to a smaller medium so that two
hours could fit on a DVD say - a rate of about 7200Kbits plus Dolby for
an effective rate of about 8000Kbits give or take a bit.
Whoa, lets not leave the DV-AVI format yet. |
| Quote: | Of course folks do not shoot perfectly - so one needs to edit the video -
before transferring to video - etc. I hope I am guessing right about DV.
Because you are working with material that hasn't been professionally |
edited, the output of your hypothetical Mini-DV camera, you will need
to do some extensive editing. There are Frame accurate MPEG editors
that can add some transitions and can apply text, but there is still much
more that can be done in the DV-AVI format.
| Quote: | I use analog to capture in.
|
Do you mean that you first make a VHS recording?
| Quote: | I then digitize the analog on first playback
to the computer by running it through the TV-Card in S-video. I set the
MPEG2 encoder in the TV-Card to encode at 72000Kbits using Dolby - with
an all I-frame capture.
|
You mean 7200Kbps don't you? Is that VBR? "An all I-frame
capture", now you really have my interest. My Kfir-II chip ( The
Broadcom BCM7040) can also capture real time to I-frame only,
but not that many others can.
| Quote: | I edit the file using VirtualDub-MPEG2 - and
save the edited file using Xvid at 1500Kbits for the computer.
|
That sounds like an excellent approach, to me. You should
be getting very good results. Have you tried pushing the
image size into the HDV range when doing that Xvid encode?
| Quote: | So I am wondering - is there a substantial difference in quality that one
can perceive with the naked eye of Mini-DV over Analog - knowing that
most folks still have regular TV's and most folks do not want 30GB files
on their computers - so they bring them down to small sizes?
|
I would expect that the main factors would be the image quality
of the respective cameras, and what level of editing you will want
to do. The camera's format is only an intermediate consideration,
you will be converting whatever it is into MPEG (for DVDs) or
something like your Xvid, to be useful. If you can do the editing
you need in the format you want to eventually have your video,
then capture to that format, and save great gobs of time.
| Quote: | Thanks
- really have been thinking about miniDV - but it only records in 24fps
per second instead of 29.97fps like analog does.So it is bound to lose
some information when recording in the real world - to-wit five frames
per second - or 300 frames per minute - or 36,000 frames in a two hour
recording. Just does not seem as good - but nice.
As PTravel mentioned, you have it wrong there. In fact his |
reply is surprisingly well adapted to your situation. That assumes
that we both correctly understand what it is, exactly, you are doing.
Luck;
Ken |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in