Hi Everyone
I know the "considered wisdom" is that capture and edit should be done in DV mode to maximise final quality of DVD.(Then create video file and burn using MPEG etc )
Can I ask whether this rule also applies when you capture from an analogue source?
I am attemting to convert analogue signal to digital using my Camcorder (with AV-DV activated) and then using Firewire to transfer the digital signal to UVS8)
In this scenario is it wise to capture in DV or MPEG? (If the ultimate objective is to burn a DVD)
Incidentally, when I activate the AV-DV on the camcorder the display immediately flickers and becomes unstable. This is then reflected on the UVS8 capture screen.
Is this normal?
Has anyone come across this?
Would I avaoid this if I just copy onto a blank minidv and then capture that separately?
Again, many many thanks.
Antonio y Anna
A variation on a common theme
Moderator: Ken Berry
A variation on a common theme
Antonio y Anna
-
Trevor Andrew
Hi Antonio y Anna
My Thoughts
When capturing from a digital camera via Firewire.
I use Dv-Avi.
The digital information is stored on my camera as Dv-Avi, the capture process copies the information as Dv-Avi with little or no recoding, making it easy on your computers resources.
What you capture is what you have on your camera.
This I believe to be the best and easiest method. (file size about 13Gb/hour)
When you capture from an analogue source Video Studio has to recode the information in real time.
This process is very demanding on your pc.
So why capture to Dv-Avi when at some point after editing I have to recode to Mpeg,
To me this seems a pointless exercise when I can capture to Mpeg from the start.(file size about 4.3Gb)
Editing in Mpeg has many critics, complaining about quality, and prefer editing Avi clips. Others find it ok!
There is a problem concerning ‘out of sync audio’ when editing/rendering to Mpeg.
Do not use Smart Render.
Ulead tech support are working on a solution, they admit there is a problem associated with the update patch and audio sync’.
I cannot comment re capture analogue using camera pass through, I do not have a/v in.
In a nutshell if I am capturing analogue I use Mpeg.
Hope this helps
My Thoughts
When capturing from a digital camera via Firewire.
I use Dv-Avi.
The digital information is stored on my camera as Dv-Avi, the capture process copies the information as Dv-Avi with little or no recoding, making it easy on your computers resources.
What you capture is what you have on your camera.
This I believe to be the best and easiest method. (file size about 13Gb/hour)
When you capture from an analogue source Video Studio has to recode the information in real time.
This process is very demanding on your pc.
So why capture to Dv-Avi when at some point after editing I have to recode to Mpeg,
To me this seems a pointless exercise when I can capture to Mpeg from the start.(file size about 4.3Gb)
Editing in Mpeg has many critics, complaining about quality, and prefer editing Avi clips. Others find it ok!
There is a problem concerning ‘out of sync audio’ when editing/rendering to Mpeg.
Do not use Smart Render.
Ulead tech support are working on a solution, they admit there is a problem associated with the update patch and audio sync’.
I cannot comment re capture analogue using camera pass through, I do not have a/v in.
In a nutshell if I am capturing analogue I use Mpeg.
Hope this helps
-
jchunter
Tony,
I have done a lot of tests that show NO visible degradation when either capturing or editing in mpeg2 format. My tests (done with video test patterns) show no visible resolution difference between AVI and Mpeg2 when the bitrate is 8 Mbps. If you reduce the bitrate you may see compression artifacts.
Things that DO reduce video resolution: Cross rendering - where you capture with one field order and then convert it to another field order, and Using too low a bitrate.
These apply equally to digital and analog video. The main difference between the two is that analog video has lower resolution than digital. Therefore, any loss of resolution is even less noticeable.
Don't worry about the display during capture because the display gets the lowest priority during capture.
IMHO, capturing and editing in mpeg2 is preferable (if you have a fast CPU and lots of memory) because the process is simpler, faster, and the video files are MUCH smaller. I do it all the time.
I have done a lot of tests that show NO visible degradation when either capturing or editing in mpeg2 format. My tests (done with video test patterns) show no visible resolution difference between AVI and Mpeg2 when the bitrate is 8 Mbps. If you reduce the bitrate you may see compression artifacts.
Things that DO reduce video resolution: Cross rendering - where you capture with one field order and then convert it to another field order, and Using too low a bitrate.
These apply equally to digital and analog video. The main difference between the two is that analog video has lower resolution than digital. Therefore, any loss of resolution is even less noticeable.
Don't worry about the display during capture because the display gets the lowest priority during capture.
IMHO, capturing and editing in mpeg2 is preferable (if you have a fast CPU and lots of memory) because the process is simpler, faster, and the video files are MUCH smaller. I do it all the time.
Many thanks to John and Trevor
Thanks for your replies. (Hi John, long time no speak-hope you are well)
I will beaver away like a true soldier.
Antonio y Anna
I will beaver away like a true soldier.
Antonio y Anna
Antonio y Anna
The only advantage of MPEG is that it saves file space.
MPEG capture is OK if...
1 - Your computer is fast enough to handle it.
2 - You're not editing (other than cutting & hard-splicing).
3 - Your video will fit onto a DVD without re-encoding.
)!
If your computer is fast enough, there may be no encodong problems. It's just that there is more risk of dropped-frames or other glitches when you are MPEG encoding in real-time. If the computer gets interrupted by multitasking, or if it simply can't keep up with the real-time video, there will be problems. This is true with any analog capture, but MPEG encoding requires lots of work (calculations, etc.) by the CPU. With AVI, the CPU isn't working very hard, you're just transfering lots of data. This is not an issue if you have a video capture card with a built-in MPEG encoder.
If you MPEG encode later, after the video is in digital form on the hard drive, there are no CPU or timing issues. This digital-to-digital process doesn't require any particular speed, and it can be interrupted without causing errors. It is theoretically possible to get a higher quality MPEG if the encoder can take it's time to analyze the video and optimize the quality (minimize the "lossy" degradation of the compression/encoding)... But, I don't know if this is true in the real world of desktop video.
MPEG is not supposed to be edited. It is a "lossy" compression technique. You can cut & splice MPEG files without any deterioration. But, any real editing that requires decoding & re-coding will degrade the video. For example, if you add transitions, you will get severe "blockiness" during the transition. This isn't always terrible. It looks like a special effect, but it may not be what you want!
I also had the infamous Ulead "lip-sync" problem with edited MPEG files. I got so frustrated that I bought another MPEG editor.
Another advantage to encoding later, is that if your file turns-out to be too big to fit on a DVD, you can re-do it at a lower bit-rate, without the additoinal deterioration caused by decoding & re-coding.
MPEG capture is OK if...
1 - Your computer is fast enough to handle it.
2 - You're not editing (other than cutting & hard-splicing).
3 - Your video will fit onto a DVD without re-encoding.
This is especially true with analog (and analogue tootonyjer wrote:Can I ask whether this rule also applies when you capture from an analogue source?
)!If your computer is fast enough, there may be no encodong problems. It's just that there is more risk of dropped-frames or other glitches when you are MPEG encoding in real-time. If the computer gets interrupted by multitasking, or if it simply can't keep up with the real-time video, there will be problems. This is true with any analog capture, but MPEG encoding requires lots of work (calculations, etc.) by the CPU. With AVI, the CPU isn't working very hard, you're just transfering lots of data. This is not an issue if you have a video capture card with a built-in MPEG encoder.
If you MPEG encode later, after the video is in digital form on the hard drive, there are no CPU or timing issues. This digital-to-digital process doesn't require any particular speed, and it can be interrupted without causing errors. It is theoretically possible to get a higher quality MPEG if the encoder can take it's time to analyze the video and optimize the quality (minimize the "lossy" degradation of the compression/encoding)... But, I don't know if this is true in the real world of desktop video.
MPEG is not supposed to be edited. It is a "lossy" compression technique. You can cut & splice MPEG files without any deterioration. But, any real editing that requires decoding & re-coding will degrade the video. For example, if you add transitions, you will get severe "blockiness" during the transition. This isn't always terrible. It looks like a special effect, but it may not be what you want!
I also had the infamous Ulead "lip-sync" problem with edited MPEG files. I got so frustrated that I bought another MPEG editor.
Another advantage to encoding later, is that if your file turns-out to be too big to fit on a DVD, you can re-do it at a lower bit-rate, without the additoinal deterioration caused by decoding & re-coding.
Is this with commercial tapes, possibly with Macrovision copy protection?tonyjer wrote:Incidentally, when I activate the AV-DV on the camcorder the display immediately flickers and becomes unstable. This is then reflected on the UVS8 capture screen.