|
|
Posted by Rick Merrill on 10/06/39 11:34
PTRAVEL wrote:
> "Jack P" <vidpro40@optonlineDOT.netX> wrote in message
> news:Pw6nf.23789$L7.537@fe12.lga...
>
>>I would say that the DV picture does get noisier between generations ----
>>
>>but I'm not sure that this is the DV's fault or mine as I used to have
>
> to
>
>>bounce a few generations
>
>
> Absolutely and unequivocally, no! Transferring DV back and forth (with no
> editing requiring rendering) results in bit-for-bit copies. There is no
> generational loss. Whatever you've seen is either the result of rendering,
> or doing something other than transferring data, e.g. transcoding, using the
> wrong codec, etc.
....> I don't question what you can see, but I definitely question what
you were
> doing. DV can be copied indefinitely without loss. When you introduce
> transcoding and recompression, then you introduce loss.
>
> In terms of the OP's question, transferring DV using a DV-codec-encoded AVI
> does not result in generational loss.
>
....
>>>I know the accepted generationalization is that there is no
>>>generational loss in DV. "It's all 1s and 0s."
>>>Is that true going from DV to AVI for editing then back to DV? There
>>>is recompression going on here.
AVI == DV with a wrapper
so there is no loss of information.
HOWEVER, some stations may run data through an analog step and
back to digital again without thinking twice about it. Is there
any more to the situation?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|