|
|
Posted by Rick Merrill on 02/24/06 17:56
doc wrote:
> if one has to convert HDV to lightly compressed intermedia format then why
> go with the higher resolution to begin with?
The answer to that that makes sense to me is to ARCHIVE the data in HDV
(whatever) even tho converting for the present moment. Examples:
documentaries, land conservation, historic preservation, etc.
that's like taking a 22XX x
> 14XX pixel picture then compressing it to 640 x 480 or 800 x 600 to work
> with it then upsizing the result and expecting the END RESULTt to be
> something higher in quality output. my own experience is that once you've
> corrupted the original material, the good stuff is gone. sure it might
> still look good, but it would have just by starting with a lower res that's
> workable. my whole issue with any form of HD for now. until the jury is in
> on HD/HDV i'd stay away from it. my 2 cents or even a penny for the most
> part.
>
> drd
>
> "Ben" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:43e320b9$0$6962$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
>
>>How is this being done? As I understand it, the options are;
>>1) Edit HDV by decoding the whole GOP and then re-encoding it, which
>>sounds very lossy to me
>>2) Convert to a more lightly compressed intermediate format (presumably
>>using only intra-frame compression, like DV) and edit that.
>>
>>I'm guessing people are going for the 2nd option, but which intermediate
>>codec is being used, and are any of them becoming acceptable for
>>distribution, or do you have to convert back to HDV (lossy) for that?
>
>
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|