Looking for new camcorder -- Pros vs Cons of hard drive unit

[heinz-oz]

I'm not knocking it, I have got MSP 8, why on earth would I now try VS 10 plus?

[neonbob]

Maybe I'm just stupid but I have yet to see an edited mpeg2 file, edited that is, not just cut and trim, from a consumer type camcorder, not the mega dollar High Def variety, that does not create a problem or two when recoding.

I doubt for one minute you are stupid heinz.

To tell you the truth... it was a surprise to me as well to hear that some pros enjoy low compression mpeg for editing as opposed to dv. The article I was reading was published by ADAM WHILT {check spelling}... a pretty big and respected guy in the editing business

[neonbob]

Heinz:

Here's a link to the above mentioned article... give it a read, it's quite interesting. (the part that pertains to mpeg/dv editing is near the bottom).

http://www.adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-editing.html

It will most likely change the way you think about mpeg.

[2Dogs]

Heinz:

Here's a link to the above mentioned article... give it a read, it's quite interesting. (the part that pertains to mpeg/dv editing is near the bottom).

http://www.adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-editing.html

It will most likely change the way you think about mpeg.

I think you are getting a little confused.

This is the VS forum, populated for the most part by hobbyists and enthusiasts.

I read the article you referred to. It's aimed principally at pro users in the broadcast industry. Although it dates back to 2000, it's largely relevant, although the various prices mentioned and hardware capabilities have clearly changed significantly since it was written.

You seem to have confused mpeg2 as implemented in VS with the low compression mpeg he discusses. For example, he compares a DV25 stream, compressed in DV by about 5:1, to a similar stream compressed using m-jpeg by 3:1, and 25 Mbit I-frame only mpeg2 using around 5:1 compression.

The end quality of the DV, m-jpeg and mpeg2 were largely similar, resulting in similar artefacts and so on. There were even some benefits cited in favour of the mpeg.


How is any of this relevant to a VS user capturing footage from a MiniDV camcorder? As far as I can tell, you don't have the option of capturing to mpeg2 at beyond 9500kbps, and if you retain the LPCM audio, you are limited to a maximum of 8264kbps.

Likewise, if you try to create an mpeg2 file from an existing captured DV avi file, you will see the same bitrate limits.

Even using the highest available (in VS that is) mpeg2 bitrates, it represents a further compression of the DV avi of over 4:1. The article clearly states that such higher compression using mpeg2 will result in more artefacts and loss of image quality.


So to all intents and purposes, low compression mpeg2 is irrelevant to VS users.


Sure, but what of the new HDV standard? That uses a 25Mbit stream. Unfortunately, when you take account of the increased 1440 x 1028 resolution, compared with 720 x 480, it's clear that a 25Mbit datastream represents a further compression of 4.5:1. That will necessarily result in a diminution of its editing potential.

[jchunter]

I'm not knocking it, I have got MSP 8, why on earth would I now try VS 10 plus?

You would need Video Studio in order to properly advise users on this forum.

IMO, we need to focus on experimentation rather than speculation and hearsay. Those of us who edit Mpeg2, day in and day out, with Video Studio, in both standard definition and high definition, already know that Mpeg2 is very editable with Video Studio and does not reduce picture quality as long as the bitrate is adequate.

I have already done many Mpeg tests with Video Studio that demonstrate that SD (720x480) resolution is unchanged after five successive edit/smart-render cycles with the video bitrate at least 8Mbps. Smart rendering high definition 1440x1080 video at 25Mbps shows no loss of resolution, either. Moreover, transcoding HDV to Divx at 1920x1080 at 8Mbps shows no loss of resolution, albeit with slight (but not objectionable) compression artifacts in dark scenes. Divx is a close cousin of Mpeg4, which is more highly compressed than Mpeg2.

OTOH, some in the anti-Mpeg lobby seem to have never actually tried to edit Mpeg, yet seize every opportunity to denigrate it. By all means, get Video Studio 10+ and edit some Mpeg2. Let us know if your foot falls off!

BTW, it is fine to disagree in this forum but not OK to be disagreeable. IMO, maintaining civility and respect for other forum members is essential.

[2Dogs]

I have already done many Mpeg tests with Video Studio that demonstrate that SD (720x480) resolution is unchanged after five successive edit/smart-render cycles with the video bitrate at least 8Mbps. Smart rendering high definition 1440x1080 video at 25Mbps shows no loss of resolution, either.

Since Smart Rendering is basically just copying the video file, it's not really a fair test, is it?

A far more realistic test would be to guage the effect of filters, overlays, titles and so on, and see what the generational losses are then. That's what real world users would be interested in.

I'm happy to hear that transcoding to DivX gives such good results (and I've read your fairly comprehensive HD tutorial) but I can't help thinking that HD video is in its infancy, and that in the HDV standard, we've been sold a pup.

[neonbob]

So to all intents and purposes, low compression mpeg2 is irrelevant to VS users.

The article was not aimed at at "VS users" it was intended for Heinz.... I believe I did put his name at the top.... or did you simplymiss that in your haste to scold me???

It was intended merely to show Heinz the capability and capacity of mpeg.

[heinz-oz]

I'm not knocking it, I have got MSP 8, why on earth would I now try VS 10 plus?

You would need Video Studio in order to properly advise users on this forum.

IMO, we need to focus on experimentation rather than speculation and hearsay. Those of us who edit Mpeg2, day in and day out, with Video Studio, in both standard definition and high definition, already know that Mpeg2 is very editable with Video Studio and does not reduce picture quality as long as the bitrate is adequate.

I have already done many Mpeg tests with Video Studio that demonstrate that SD (720x480) resolution is unchanged after five successive edit/smart-render cycles with the video bitrate at least 8Mbps. Smart rendering high definition 1440x1080 video at 25Mbps shows no loss of resolution, either. Moreover, transcoding HDV to Divx at 1920x1080 at 8Mbps shows no loss of resolution, albeit with slight (but not objectionable) compression artifacts in dark scenes. Divx is a close cousin of Mpeg4, which is more highly compressed than Mpeg2.

OTOH, some in the anti-Mpeg lobby seem to have never actually tried to edit Mpeg, yet seize every opportunity to denigrate it. By all means, get Video Studio 10+ and edit some Mpeg2. Let us know if your foot falls off!

BTW, it is fine to disagree in this forum but not OK to be disagreeable. IMO, maintaining civility and respect for other forum members is essential.

I don't want to go into one of these pointless slanging matches again but do need to address some of your points:

• 1. I do not advise people on VS, I always state that I don't use it.
  2. All of us who successfully edit mpeg2 with VS, AFAIK, only includes you
  3. I do not base my opinion on hear say, it's based on my own experiences
  4. I have told you this before, I am not going to revise my opinion on mpeg2 editing on hear say from your side either.
  5. Since all my own video footage is on MiniDV, I see no point in going to edit mpeg2. Footage I had from others, in mpeg2, and edited in MSP 7.3 had sync problems and artefacts and, hence, my opinion on that process.

All the points you are making about mpeg2 editing are largely irrelevant to the average hobbyist. Don't lose sight of the fact that there are hardly any "Professional" videographers asking for advice here. It's hobbyists and discerning amateurs having basic PC systems and skills.

I don't doubt that you do get good results but have my reservations about everybody else¡¦s chances.

[heinz-oz]

So to all intents and purposes, low compression mpeg2 is irrelevant to VS users.

The article was not aimed at at "VS users" it was intended for Heinz.... I believe I did put his name at the top.... or did you simplymiss that in your haste to scold me???

It was intended merely to show Heinz the capability and capacity of mpeg.

I fully agree with what 2Dogs said on this subject.
I know about low compression mpeg and it's editability. It just doesn't apply here.
I like the way people like yourself always use one portion of the argument, mpeg. What does that mean? Nothing, if you ask me, unless you look at the rate of compression applied.

[maddrummer3301]

.

[neonbob]

So to all intents and purposes, low compression mpeg2 is irrelevant to VS users.

The article was not aimed at at "VS users" it was intended for Heinz.... I believe I did put his name at the top.... or did you simplymiss that in your haste to scold me???

It was intended merely to show Heinz the capability and capacity of mpeg.

I fully agree with what 2Dogs said on this subject.
I know about low compression mpeg and it's editability. It just doesn't apply here.
I like the way people like yourself always use one portion of the argument, mpeg. What does that mean? Nothing, if you ask me, unless you look at the rate of compression applied.

Well... okay... I am sorry I got into this.... I thought you were interested in learning new and different things.... my mistake. I will waste no more of my time on this subject

[jchunter]

... Since Smart Rendering is basically just copying the video file, it's not really a fair test, is it?

A far more realistic test would be to guage the effect of filters, overlays, titles and so on, and see what the generational losses are then. That's what real world users would be interested in.

Of course it is realistic. All my projects have Smart Render enabled and probably more than 95% of my video qualifies. Every project has transitions, still images, titles, music, voiceover... When I use global acting filters, I shorten the video clip so that they act on the shortest possible segment. BTW, I have sequentially dumb-rendered edited mpeg2 clips 5 times and see only a small reduction in resolution. However, some global filters do reduce quality, noticeably after a single render, as does changing field order.

I'm happy to hear that transcoding to DivX gives such good results (and I've read your fairly comprehensive HD tutorial) but I can't help thinking that HD video is in its infancy, and that in the HDV standard, we've been sold a pup.

Sure, HD is in its infancy but growing faster than anyone imagined. The afforable version of the HD pup will be two years old next July. However, the early, large, expensive units will be about five years old. The only turds in the HD punchbowl are the Blu-Ray and HD-DVD burners and players, which are still priced out of sight. However, alternative playback devices exist and work OK.

[jchunter]

...2. All of us who successfully edit mpeg2 with VS, AFAIK, only includes you

Just me and (at least) the other 14629 users who have read the HDV Tutorial...

3. I do not base my opinion on hear say, it's based on my own experiences

Made using either Media Studio or some ancient version of Video Studio, no doubt. [/quote]

4. I have told you this before, I am not going to revise my opinion on mpeg2 editing on hear say from your side either.

But you don't want to listen to test results either.

5. Since all my own video footage is on MiniDV, I see no point in going to edit mpeg2. Footage I had from others, in mpeg2, and edited in MSP 7.3 had sync problems and artefacts and, hence, my opinion on that process.

None of my projects exhibit audio/video sync problems. You are, of course, making a classic error of logic in assuming that when B happens after A, then B is caused by A. Mpeg does not cause A/V sync problems.

All the points you are making about mpeg2 editing are largely irrelevant to the average hobbyist. Don't lose sight of the fact that there are hardly any "Professional" videographers asking for advice here. It's hobbyists and discerning amateurs having basic PC systems and skills.

Nonsense. There is nothing magic about my procedures. They are nothing but garden variety Recommended Procedure.

[sjj1805]

Gentlemen lets not get into another heated debate about the pro's and cons of editing MPEG files. All this does is turns nasty and does not give this board a good reputation.

A fair summary of what has been discussed in the past is:

If you're hardware only captures in MPEG formats such as TV cards or High Definition Camcorders - then stick to MPEG. By attempting to convert to DV (avi) you are rendering the video once. You must then later render the video back to MPEG and so you have now rendered twice.

Unless is is unavoidable I think both sides to the debate agree that it is better where possible to render once and once only.

If your equipment captures in DV (avi) then you should stick to DV (avi) make your edits and then render to MPEG. You have only rendered once.

Some users experience problems mostly with audio/video synchronisation when editing MPEG. Having said that there are other users that do not experience problems editing MPEG files.

Unless we could all meet up in a large Hall one day and bring along all of our equipment - camcorders, computers and so on to sit side by side and compare equipment and working practices, we can only surmise at the various reasons why editing MPEGs works for some and not others.

It is possible these problems are caused by the equipment we use, the workflow we follow or a combination of both. All that can be said without further argument is try it and see if it works for you.

I myself have problems with audio/synch when editing MPEGs and so I tend to use a dedicated MPEG editor for that purpose. Editing DV has never once yielded those problems. On the other side of the coin JC Hunter has reported quite strongly that he does not suffer these problems.
JC and myself appear to follow the same workflow and so I suspect it may be due to differences in hardware.

Lets not get off track on the purpose of this thread which is
The pro's and Con's of a Hard Drive Unit.

I do not have a Hard Drive unit but If I were to consider purchasing one I would wish to take the following points into consideration.

1. Bulkiness.
We take our camcorders on holiday with us. This not only involves passing the embarkment counters at airports with weight restrictions, it also includes lumping the device around for several hours whilst on location.
How big and heavy are these objects. Carry a 1 kilogram bag of sugar for half an hour, that's one thing, carry it for 4 - 5 hours that's another thing.

2. Robustness.
The hard drives in my desktop computer are static. It only moves when I move the case for any reason. Having said that - is carting a hard drive camcorder about like carting a laptop computer about? Is the hard drive up to the knocks and bangs and swings of constant movement.

3. Storage capacity.
The tapes for my Mini DV camcorder are quite small and light. Each tape last about a hour and once full the tape can be changed on the spot in a matter of a few moments. How does this compare to a hard drive camcorder. Is it removeable? what is the recording capacity.
If I have to download it onto another medium whilst on holiday what are my options - plus we are back to point 1 - bulkiness.

4. Compatibility.
What is my target audience. If I go the way of HD Video (which is MPEG by the way) will these HD videos work in my auntie flo's DVD player or do I expect all of my friends and family to upgrade all their TV equipment just to see a shot of me paddling in the sea? If the answer is - you can produce a SD version - what's the point. All I know about HD reception is that the Sky Satellite system is now broadcasting HD channels but to watch them I have to upgrade my TV viewing equipment.

Is bigger better anyway (isn't that what hard drive camcorders are about - HD)- I think it depends on other factors.
Two of my sons have these big 48" screen TV sets. The one son has a large living room and the big screen looks nice in his living room. The other son though - having seen his brothers TV set decided he wanted one. To be honest it's far too big for his living room and is definitely out of place.
So where do we draw the line - up sticks and move house!

I think there is a bit more that needs to be asked other than the recording format.

Come on guys lets keep this friendly.

[maddrummer3301]

.