VIDEO

[mikemeister_admin]

A new topic.
hopefully there is lot of discussion about this subject.

---

So I discussed a couple of days ago on a dutch group nl.hobby.video  about the subject
" Best camera explained.
someone started the duch discussion with a english phrase, he get it from a Canon side:

---

Which is better? MiniDV or DVD?

In best quality recording mode, the MiniDV tapes used in Canon camcorders
deliver 80 minutes of recording compared with just 30 minutes recording
available with DVDs. What's more, the 9Mbps maximum recording rate of DVDs
seriously limits image quality when compared to the 25Mbps available with
MiniDV systems.

Which is easier to edit? MiniDV or DVD recordings?


MiniDV tape recordings give moviemakers more versatility when editing
footage. This is because MiniDV camcorders use a DV encoding system rather
than the MPEG2 encoding of DVD camcorders. While MPEG2 encodes the movie
frames in groups of 15, the DV system processes each frame individually,
allowing users to extract any single frame they wish. The result is easier
and more precise editing.

---

After that he said in dutch: it is clear that mini-DV is much better.
The discussion started.
It was a long discussion.
the end was undecided.
In the discussion there where a person, He nows a lot of the new DVD and HD=camera's of the last 2 or 3 years.

They take film directly in mpeg2 mode.
So they are very compressed , if you compare this with the DV-standard. ( mini-dv)
orginally film is 250 Mbits/s , what is compressed to 25Mbits/s on mini-dv.
You transport it via IEEE 1394 to your pc and save it as DV-avi.
So 1 hour 25 Mbits/s film on the mini-dv is copied excactly on the pc.
then you do process it and save it on a DVD.
When you save it on DVD it is again compressed to 4,3 GByte.
But it is Mpeg2.

---

So the new cameras make directly the end result.
But in 10 of the 9 cases, thus always you go processing the Mpeg2 on your PC.
Is this a easy way ? Most of the talking people in the group say that processing Mpeg2 gives no good results.
But  that specific  man he has 35 years of experience with  filming and has bought two years ago a Mpeg flash camera; said it gives better results then the old DV-standard.
And there where more advantage with this Mpeg 2 mode.
He get the 2 hour film in 15 minutes on his pc.
So it was a long discussion about this.
the end result is undecided.

---

I like your opinion or experience about this subject ?
Is it better to  buy a Mpeg2 video camera the next time?
And how do  we edit such a footage with the end result the same a mini-DV?

Frits

[-default]

I don't have much experience with the newer video formats.  I'd say that going with HD and miniDV is probably the better deal for the future, though most people will want a DvD for playing on their home system.  If your main concern is family videos, then quality is not going to be much of an issue.  One good place to pick up on discussions like this is in the rec.video.desktop news group.

[mikemeister_admin]

I'd say that going with HD and miniDV is probably the better deal for the future, though most people will want a DvD for playing on their home system.  One good place to pick up on discussions like this is in the rec.video.desktop news group.

Mike,
in Holland we have discussions group nl.hobby.video!
I hoped that some of the photographers under us has interest in this subject.
But it seems to be not.
MiniDV is for years a common property. HD and DVD in the camera not.
The new issue is now  working with Mpeg2 a better option.
Till now miniDV camera footage is copied as DV-AVI  to the PC and then processed.
The opinion from some people is that working on that way is somewhat out of date.

Frits

[BBushe]

hi Frits,

been away on work, and not come to the forum for a wee while.

I recently purchased a Sony HDV camcorder, I would have waited to see the new Canon one (can't remember the name, but it looked good) but wanted to buy before my trip to New Zealand in March. I bought the Sony HDR-HC7, which uses MiniDV (I thing HDV is the term for HD MiniDV).

What is best for you may not be what is best for me of course, but here was my reasoning:

a: I like MiniDV. I record on it, capture it to PC, and store it. It is immediately a good backup as I have two copies. A lot of people are criticial of MiniDV tapes, but usually these people re-use them them multiple times. For my purposes they are cheap, and you can us normal MiniDVs for HDV recording (as you point out the bitrate is the same). also the HDV tapes are compact and easy to pack, so the DVD's have no advantage unless you are in extremes of temperatures (that your camera probably can't handle anyway...)

b: all editing packages can handle the .avi file generated from HDV capture. Hardly any can edit MPEGS, so you are pretty much stuck with what you have. This will change I guess, but since mpeg is already compressed then you have lost a lot of information before you start, and editing may never be as simple as it is currently with HDV (providing you have a powerful PC). A further complication is most HDD, DVD and Flash Memory cams capture using AVCHD format (a kind of MPEG-4) which is even more highly compressed than MPEG-2, and quite difficult to work with.

c: I'm not worried about the speed of capture to the PC, I do that on a separate PC anyway. And as they have the same bitrate, one hour of MiniDV takes up the same space as one hour of HDV.

I guess it's a bit like shooting in RAW compared to JPEG. If you are happy that the camera is doing a good enough conversion job, and you are happy to limit your editing options later, then go JPEG. And sometimes that is the easiest route. If you want more control, and the ability to process you photos using different packages, then you'll prefer RAW.

Some stuff I wish I had just short JPG though...at least you can make this choice on a camera, whereas a camcorder you have to stick with your choice.

bb

[mikemeister_admin]

hi Frits,
I bought the Sony HDR-HC7, which uses MiniDV (I thing HDV is the term for HD MiniDV).

nice camera 1 CCD chip. HDV means "High Definition Video "

a: so the DVD's have no advantage

There are people they say, it is a new standard and you can good edit the DVD footage.
It is indeed compressed mpeg2 but it  seems that the results are the same or better.
I have no experience with this. But the dutch discussion goes o.a. about this subject.

b:Hardly any can edit MPEGS, so you are pretty much stuck with what you have. This will change I guess, but since mpeg is already compressed then you have lost a lot of information before you start, and editing may never be as simple as it is currently with HDV (providing you have a powerful PC).
A further complication is most HDD, DVD and Flash Memory cams capture using AVCHD format (a kind of MPEG-4) which is even more highly compressed than MPEG-2, and quite difficult to work with.

In the Dutch discussion, there was one person , who has extensive experience with mpeg sources.
He has bought himself  a Mpeg Flash video camera. He nows a lot about Mpeg2.
His wisdom told him, that in the early days it was indeed difficult to edit Mpeg2 streams.
But nowadays not. He said there where made progress in the MPEG evolution.
He has 24 years of experience with film/video.
He is enthusiastic about the new possibilities with Mpeg.

You say about the same words as other people in the discussion group about that subject.
So, I had hoped , to  met people here that have the same experience as that person.

c: I'm not worried about the speed of capture to the PC, I do that on a separate PC anyway. And as they have the same bitrate, one hour of MiniDV takes up the same space as one hour of HDV.

It takes that person about 15 minutes to get his footage of say 2 hours on his pc.
He claimed that he could make a DVD play-ready in the time that you get your footage on the normal way to the pc. (1 hour footage DVD-AVI takes 1 hour transporttime)

bb

[BBushe]

nice camera 1 CCD chip. HDV means "High Definition Video "

yes, that what the acronym expands to, but it means High Defintion Video on DV Tape, but makes no destinction between a DV or MiniDV tape.

There are people they say, it is a new standard and you can good edit the DVD footage.
It is indeed compressed mpeg2 but it  seems that the results are the same or better.
I have no experience with this. But the dutch discussion goes o.a. about this subject.

I meant the DVD's have no advantage for me, and they have plenty of limitations.

BTW How can the results of editing a compressed source be better than an uncompressed source?  It may happen that product from camera A may be better than camera B, but that certainly would be due to different factors. to make a standard DVD you will have to compress the file to mpeg2 eventually, somewhere in that workflow you lose quality. for example, if the conversion from avi to mpeg-2 is poor then that workflow will give inferior results. Some people would say the quality of the footage from the camera is determined by the bitrate it captures at, while others say the colour rendition is more important. I think it is a personal thing.

In the Dutch discussion, there was one person , who has extensive experience with mpeg sources.
He has bought himself  a Mpeg Flash video camera. He nows a lot about Mpeg2.
His wisdom told him, that in the early days it was indeed difficult to edit Mpeg2 streams.
But nowadays not. He said there where made progress in the MPEG evolution.
He has 24 years of experience with film/video.
He is enthusiastic about the new possibilities with Mpeg.

You say about the same words as other people in the discussion group about that subject.
So, I had hoped , to  met people here that have the same experience as that person.

I have more than 24 years of experience with film/video, but in my opinion very little of it has relelvance to this discussion.I have been capturing video and digitally editing using high end packages like Avid Express and Liquid Edtion for around 10 years, but even that does not make me an expert.

I'm not sure what you are looking for. Are you looking for someone who supports this source? The source you quote seems to be in the minority (that doesn't make him wrong!) in several of his opinions.

You have been able to edit MPEG-2 streams, and even combine avi with mpeg-2 in the same timelines, but you lose a lot of flexibility with the editing and it created lots of technical issues. the issues may have largely been resolved, but the flexibility is still lost, and the issue is further complicated by the new mpeg-4 formats (AVCHD). Only the newest versions of software (for example Studio 11 does, but Studio 10 does not) can even import the data, and there are lots of issues. I don't even know if the version of Liquid I use supports AVCHD.

I know you use PSE and Neat Video. Do they support the formats?

It takes that person about 15 minutes to get his footage of say 2 hours on his pc.
He claimed that he could make a DVD play-ready in the time that you get your footage on the normal way to the pc. (1 hour footage DVD-AVI takes 1 hour transporttime)

yes, you said that in an earlier post. That is due to the compression and the fact the file is on random access device.

But there is another factor here. If he thinks he can transfer his data and get a DVD play ready in a hour then he is not doing any of the editing I do. So what does he aim to get out of his video? I use neat video, colour correction, effects, and never use the footage straight from the camera. usually I will use footage from several different tapes, moving from shot to shot and back often. So my workflow is edit heavy, and as I said the capture time is completely immaterial to me, as that is done on a different machine while I work elsewhere.

I still think the .raw vs .jpg analogy is very appropriate here. If you shoot .jpg only it eliminates a number of steps in your workflow saving you loads of time. The images are compressed and processed, so they are smaller so they take up less space and are faster to load. Does that make it better? For a lot of people it does. For me, it does not, because none of these benefits are relevant to me.

So what I am trying to say is the technical purist and the mpeg-4 (or 2) evangelist may have widely different agendas. But what is right for you is what is right for you.

[mikemeister_admin]

I meant the DVD's have no advantage for me, and they have plenty of limitations.

Chel van Gennip the person in the Dutch group who nows a lot about Mpeg2 argued that where in the past.

BTW How can the results of editing a compressed source be better than an uncompressed source?

Wich source is uncompressed?.
DV-avi is compressed. Uncompressed Avi is about 250Mbit/s, 10 times so much as DV.

I could not so good explaining it as the orginal writer ( Chel van Gennip) does about the subject in the Dutch  discussiongroup.
I have tried to involve him in this conversation. I have mailed him, but I get no response.
The conversation is in this group; but it is 99% Dutch, only the beginning is partly english.
http://groups.google.com/group/nl.hobby.video/browse_thread/thread/8bf6ae9f981df2e8/1667c16ae5a10c83?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1#1667c16ae5a10c83

Are you looking for someone who supports this source?
The source you quote seems to be in the minority (that doesn't make him wrong!)
in several of his opinions.

Indeed! I have met his ideas( from Chel van Gennip) and experience on the Dutch group  and I think he has right.
So when I need a new video camera I think I buy also a Mpeg2 Camera and go working with software for that.
But, indeed I like to now other opnions and experiences, or they support his ideas about the progess about Mpeg2 using and handling.

Only the newest versions of software (for example Studio 11 does, but Studio 10 does not) can even
import the data, and there are lots of issues.

I have had years of experience with versions of Pinnacle studio 7 -8-9. Very bad experiences.
Lots of people have.

I know you use PSE and Neat Video. Do they support the formats?

(AVCHD (Advanced Video Codec High Definition) is a new high definition recording format introduced by Sony and Panasonic.
It can use various storage media, including 3" recordable DVD discs, as well as hard disk, and SD and Memory Stick Pro memory cards,
and is being positioned to compete with handheld video camera recording formats like HDV and MiniDV.)


AVCHD , not I think. Till now I have never directly imported Mpeg2 in PSE 2.0.
I now that I have had big trouble, when I did't in the Studio versions.
Certainly when I mix formats like
DV-AVI meg1 or 2 and also combined with photo's.
Nowadays I use only DV-AVI mixed with photo's.
I think, I go experimenting with Mpeg2



the whole Dutch Discussion started by: Which is better? MiniDV or DVD?

a small translation from the Dutch video group:

So, somebody complainded that he said MiniDV, and is shot down.
Chel van Gennip argued that the other person indeed is shot down with a Baazooka, on the reason he mentioned about MPEG2.
quotations:
- MPEG2 on 9MBit/sec has a measurably better quality then DV on 25MBit/s.
Better 25 times  compressing and making use of the similarities between consecutive pictures then
10 times compressing without that  advantag.
The broadcasting  send via sateliet ordinarily  with  3MBit/s

- Modern video editting-prg's work without problems with MPEG2 input.

- Because the endresult is pretty sure seen in MPEG2 (DVD), a other type of compression, like DV,
could only add errors. Jou get the worst of two worlds.

- In the mean time MPEG2 is the standard for high resolution camera's

Fact is that till  since the introduction of  DV in 1994 big developments in the
technique are there, whereby the technical more difficult  but better MPEG2 format now could applied very well.

[BBushe]

Wich source is uncompressed?.
DV-avi is compressed. Uncompressed Avi is about 250Mbit/s, 10 times so much as DV.

I could not so good explaining it as the orginal writer ( Chel van Gennip) does about the subject in the Dutch  discussiongroup.
I have tried to involve him in this conversation. I have mailed him, but I get no response.
The conversation is in this group; but it is 99% Dutch, only the beginning is partly english.
http://groups.google.com/group/nl.hobby.video/browse_thread/thread/8bf6ae9f981df2e8/1667c16ae5a10c83?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1#1667c16ae5a10c83

ok, there are crossed wires. The situation is different for different formats.

you are right that minDV for standard definition is compressed, but it is a 'lossless compression'. This means it does not have predicted frames, it does not have compression artifacts. When you edit you can edit repeatedly with no quality degradation.

MPEG2 format is a 'lossy' compression scheme, meaning many frames are predicted based on previous frames. If you plan to do any editing your final video will suffer generational losses as your using predicted frames to generate more predicted frames.

BUt we are talking HD here aren't we? The situation is much different! HDV is actually MPEG-2 compressed anyway, but at 25 Mbps.Packages like ExpressDV transcode this to a lossless intermediate fromat for editing, to maintain the quality of the original footage (this uses lots of disk space bt the way). In effect your man is arguing that 9 Mbps MPEG2 is better than 25 Mbps MPEG2?

look at it from a photographers point of view: even a 1080 frame is only equivalent to a 1.5 Mp camera photo, what happens to those when you turn those into JPG's? At least with HDV and certain packaages you can d your editing without compounding artifacts.

Indeed! I have met his ideas( from Chel van Gennip) and experience on the Dutch group  and I think he has right.
So when I need a new video camera I think I buy also a Mpeg2 Camera and go working with software for that.
But, indeed I like to now other opnions and experiences, or they support his ideas about the progess about Mpeg2 using and handling.

well if you think that's best for you, then go for it. But you may want to check out some more forums, there are people who know much more about ti than me.

I have had years of experience with versions of Pinnacle studio 7 -8-9. Very bad experiences.
Lots of people have.

I have never used Studio. Never said I did, in fact I stated I use AVID ExpressDV and Liquid. I cited Studio purely as an example of how only the very latest products support AVCHD, as it may have been relevant to your projected memory card camcorder research.

AVCHD , not I think. Till now I have never directly imported Mpeg2 in PSE 2.0.
I now that I have had big trouble, when I did't in the Studio versions.
Certainly when I mix formats like
DV-AVI meg1 or 2 and also combined with photo's.
Nowadays I use only DV-AVI mixed with photo's.
I think, I go experimenting with Mpeg2

I agree with regard to AVCHD.

In respect to HDV, working with mpeg2 on the editing machine is very resource intensive. It may be less intensive to work with lower bitrates (conjecture on my part here). Working with HDV requires more disk space for the lossless intermeidate. But another thought that strike me is the video I capture is important to me, so I want the better quality. In the future I don't want to look back and wish I had gone for the better quality option now that PC's can work with it easily.

so to summarise:

the whole Dutch Discussion started by: Which is better? MiniDV or DVD?

I'll just note here that the DV tapes I captured in 2000 are 100 percent readable (I store them reasonably correctly) while the DVD's I wrote in 2003 from them are useless. I hope they have improved the dyes since then...

- MPEG2 on 9MBit/sec has a measurably better quality then DV on 25MBit/s.
Better 25 times  compressing and making use of the similarities between consecutive pictures then
10 times compressing without that  advantag.
The broadcasting  send via sateliet ordinarily  with  3MBit/s

1st point may sometimes be true for SD footage, but the lossless editing will compensate IF YOU EDIT. For HD he is arguing that 9Mbps is better than 25 Mbps.

As for satellite broadcasts, they are noticably crap on my SD television, never mind HDTV, that is a purely misleading argument, perhaps even specious.  But DVD is very nice on my SD and that is only 9 mbps or so. However HD-DVD has a juicy 29 Mbps bitrate, quite close to HDV. Does that mean his argument holds only for SD-DVD?

- Modern video editting-prg's work without problems with MPEG2 input.

perhaps loss of quality isn't a big issue for him. You can't edit mpeg-2 without loss of quality. I don't believe normal packages use lossless packages for SD footage (could be wrong here).

- Because the endresult is pretty sure seen in MPEG2 (DVD), a other type of compression, like DV,
could only add errors. Jou get the worst of two worlds.

for SD, I doubt this is actually true, especially if editing with at least one applied filter. For HD the same probably applies, due to the lossless intermediate.

- In the mean time MPEG2 is the standard for high resolution camera's

???? well if you consider HDV is MPeg2 then maybe, but I think the majority of HD cams out there are high end, not prosumer or consumer. And now at least two of the biggest consumer/prosumer vendors are going avchd.

bb

[BBushe]

I only mentioned ExpressDV using lossless intermediates, as I could not recall Liquid doing this. Some research on the avid boards revealed Liquid does not do this and veteran Liquid editors claimed this aproach gave them better quality, while the ExpressDV guys are certain lossless intermediate is the way to go.

So as you can see, the subject of video and what is best is a very hotly debated.

[mikemeister_admin]

Bbuse,
i am busy to with the previous answer!
It is very difficult for me.
I have loaded the whole discussion of the dutch group in wordperfect and unload the nonse of it.
the discussion on our subject video is loaded in Clipmate and there i am busy to formulate the answer.
also some english words are sometimes a problem for me. For this I use Babylon 6 to translate it to english.

frits
so be patient