|
|
Posted by Richard Crowley on 11/22/05 00:24
"bmcswain" wrote ...
> Richard, Thanks for responding. I guess I was not being very clear.
>
> Let me try again: Future video displays and televisions are a moving
> target right now. I am sure (almost 100%) that there will be new media
> forms and encoding standards that will address the best ways to store
> and present data (i.e. video stream) to the new TV devices (HDTV, etc.)
Right. Everything "Hollywood" has produced to date (both on film
and video) is in the exactly the same position as you are. Where they
have the high-quality original materials, they are using high-quality
capture/conversion and (expensive) lossless storage, but then the
value of the material supports that expense.
> Until the industry decides what the format will be (for example
> MPEG5???), I'd like to use a versitile file format with very little or
> no loss in the captured video / audio.
How much loss is acceptable is greatly influenced by the quality
of the original and the cost/benefit value to the owner of the video.
> The file format should be one that can be easily converted
> in 2010-14 to whatever is coming.
It is hard to believe that AVI files using reasonably popular codecs
(like DV or HuffyUV, etc.) would NOT be readable in 5-10 years.
And as long as you can read/decode them, they can be trans-coded
into whatever form is popular then. OTOH, "PICVideo M-JPEG"
sounds like it may be a proprietary codec and I would have serious
concerns about its longevity.
> It's my understanding that AVI is such a format. But that's the reason
> for my question: Is my understanding on target. What might be better?
Nothing really can be "better" than AVI since you can use AVI for
storage of uncompressed (or compressed-lossless) video/audio using
different codecs.
> What else should I consider?
The other non-technical aspects of the project, namely the economic
(cost/benefit tradeoff) decisions.
> The codec I have used is PICVideo M-JPEG; frame size is 740-480; 29.97
> fps; and 100% quality. The capture software is Pinnacle Studio Version
> 9.
What is the capture hardware? That is of much more influence on
the quality than the "capture software" which may be doing nothing
more than shuttling the data into a file unchanged(?) "100% quality"
is a relative term, as inconvienent as that concept may be. You can
record the sound of someone singing over the telephone at "100%
quality", but it will still sound like it came through a telephone.
> This is actually an archieving project for a real, not rich, client.
> They are concerned that the tape and laserdisc media is beginning
> to "corrrode" and they want to protect their projects.
Does "their projects" imply that these were produced by them?
Do they have access to the original production materials?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|