|
|
Posted by Smarty on 01/03/06 22:23
Nappy,
I guess it is possible that Sony, Canon, and JVC (and the other 52 companies
which comprise the HDV consortium) will indeed abandon the HDV format since
it is so messy. http://www.hdv-info.org/
I would agree that compressed audio is inherently inferior to PCM, but it is
noteworthy that both Digital Theater Sound (DTS) and Digital Dolby AC3 are
much more highly compressed than HDV yet they somehow satisfy the worldwide
requirements of movie theaters, DVD distribution, and the vast majority of
worldwide HD distribution .....so I again challenge the argument that
compressed sound is inherently the issue with HDV. HDV's audio format has 16
bit stereo channels, and compresses far less aggressively than Digital Dolby
AC3. (Dolby fits 5.1 channels into the same bitrate as HDV uses to fit 2
stereo channels) so there is actually an argument to be made that HDV should
inherently sound substantially better than Digital Dolby AC3. I therefore
would imagine that the HDV camcorders out there for consumer use sacrifice
sound quality in their microphone, amplifier, and encoder designs rather
than the HDV format itself being inherently flawed.
Smarty
"Nappy" <noemail@all.com> wrote in message
news:dJAuf.45655$7h7.40599@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
> news:wYWdnbTLxv7ATifenZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>> Nappy,
>>
>> There is a lot of immature software being touted as "HDV ready" and most
> is
>> indeed slow. Hence my particular preference. As regards editing MPEG2
> versus
>> DV or other formats which use only intraframe (and not interframe)
> encoding,
>> I personally have no objections to them as either "messy" or cumbersome,
>> since they hide the GOP structure and remove the "lumps" arising from
> edits
>> on P and B frames in essentially the same way as DV frame editing hides
> the
>> transcoding required to blend DV or other intraframe compressed material.
> If
>> they work smoothly and allow edit points which are timed as uniformly and
>> precisely as other video at 29.97 frames per second, I guess I really
> don't
>> care that new GOPs have to be formed so long as it is done quickly and
>> transparently. I personally do a lot of editing now in VideoReDo which is
>> MPEG2, and I hardly notice the difference from older DV/ .avi editors.
>
> To edit HDV recompression is often necessary. I find that messy. For
> simple
> cuts-only editing that's fine. As soon as you start doing things with
> layers
> and fx.. it is not fine.
>
>
>
>>
>> Real time rendering and handling of the larger pixel volume certainly
>> creates huge headaches for the developers, and transcoding into and out
>> of
>> intermediate formats is, to use your term, an interim solution at best.
>> Dedicated special purpose hardware and better algorithms are going to
> emerge
>> as will faster processors, but the immediate environment is
>> unquestionably
>> marginal.
>
> Dedicated special purpose hardware only last a short time and usually
> fades
> as computers take the task over. I don't invest in it anymore.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> On the flip side, I do find the edited HDV results to be profoundly
> superior
>> visually, and worth the pain. I really have not made any comparisons of
>> camera audio and assume the specific camera(s) and not the HDV format for
>> audio are to blame.
>
> Anytime you are comparing compressed audio to uncompressed PCM the
> compressed audio will lose.
>
>
>>
>> Having spent my early days in broadcast engineering when NTSC was being
>> introduced, I can only say that HDV, like most technologies, still needs
> to
>> mature, and is likely to have a long and successful life ahead of it
>> IMHO.
>
> HDV will soon be eclipsed and will hopefullly be remembered as a short
> lived
> format.
>
>
>>
>> Smarty
>>
>>
>> "Nappy" <noemail@all.com> wrote in message
>> news:92Auf.40651$dO2.25974@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>> >
>> > "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
>> > news:X-ednaE8tNqHWCfenZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>> >
>> >> I disagree with your statement that working with HDV is "messy and
> slow,
>> > and
>> >> working with it sucks.". I would be especially interested in knowing
> what
>> >> tools you have tried, and how they have failed to perform.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > It sucks because it requires editing of a delta compression scheme such
> as
>> > MPEG. As you can see this threw the NLE coders into a tizz trying to
>> > provide
>> > adequate manipulation of the MPEG stream in their current apps.Some
>> > more
>> > successful than others. The lack of real time hardware transcoding,
>> > crappy
>> > audio.. to my ears the audio from HDV cameras is very very poor, The
> fact
>> > the HDV breaks down fairly quickly in a complex post workflow. If I had
>> > more
>> > of an interest I could go on and on. PPro worked just fine cutting HDV.
>> > But
>> > HDVs effect on my workflow is negative.
>> >
>> > IMHO it is an interim solution. Messy and slow.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|