|
|
Posted by Frank on 02/15/07 04:40
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:00:59 -0800, in 'rec.video.desktop',
in article <Re: MPEG4 Camcorders - any good?>,
"PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote:
>
>"Frank" <frank@nojunkmail.humanvalues.net> wrote in message
>news:rt37t2t7rfda7h4pfiqfrk0np4vqt57pd7@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 12:01:14 -0800, in 'rec.video.desktop',
>> in article <Re: MPEG4 Camcorders - any good?>,
>> "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>A couple of points:
>>>
>>>1. Some HD TVs do a good job up-converting 640i (standard definition
>>>video), and some do an absolutely atrocious job, while looking good with
>>>HD
>>>material.
>>>
>>>2. All transcodes (the process of converting non-mpeg2 source material to
>>>mpeg2) are not created equal. DVD camcorders, entry-level editing
>>>packages
>>>and dedicated software transcoders all produce DVD-compliant mpeg2.
>>>However, the differences in resulting video quality will be dramatic. DVD
>>>camcorders do single-pass, on-the-fly transcodes and result in the worst
>>>quality. Entry-level editing packages (and even some mid-range to
>>>prosumer
>>>packages) usually compromise on transcode quality and optimize for short
>>>transcode time. These will produce better DVDs than a DVD camcorder, but
>>>they're stll not the best. The highest video quality will be achieved by
>>>using a stand-alone transcoder program that can do 2-pass, 10-bit, maximum
>>>motion search transcodes. There are inexpensive solutions for this -- I
>>>use
>>>tmpgenc -- but transcode time with this product is measured in tens of
>>>hours
>>>(transcoding a 2-hour video can take up to 24 hours on my 3 GHz P4). More
>>>expensive (much more expensive) software transcoders can achieve equal
>>>quality in somewhat less time, though I'm not aware of any that can do a
>>>quality real-time transcode, i.e. 2 hours to transcode a 2 hour video.
>>>The
>>>differences in video quality between a DVD camcorder, an entry-level
>>>all-in-one package and a properly-produced stand-alone transcode are
>>>obvious
>>>on a good standard definition television. On an HD TV that has good
>>>upscaling capability, the differences will be very dramatic.
>>>
>>>3. I'm strictly a hobbyist. I produce video for myself, my wife and my
>>>in-laws, along with the occassional Youtube upload (and I do have my own
>>>non-commercial website on travel video just for fun). As you note,
>>>everyone
>>>has their own standard for what is "good enough." I don't know your
>>>standard, but I can tell you this: I wouldn't expect anything remotely
>>>acceptable from the Sanyo. The focus of its design is a gimmick, i.e. a
>>>small form factor and tapeless video. I see many, many posts in these ngs
>>>from people asking, "why does my video look so bad?" The answer will vary
>>>depending on how the video was produced, but often the answer is: "you
>>>used
>>>a lousy camera with crappy glass that produces video at high-compression
>>>rates and with low data bandwidth." No amount of post-processing can
>>>"fix"
>>>video like that. As they say in the computer field, "garbage in, garbage
>>>out." Because my videos are important to me, I strive for the best
>>>quality
>>>I can (within reason). The DVDs that I can produce come pretty close to
>>>commercial quality, but I use a prosumer camcorder, edit with prosumer
>>>software (Premiere Pro), transcode for highest quality and author the DVD
>>>with a high-end consumer/prosumer package (Encore). That may be more
>>>trouble than it's worth for you, but my feeling is that the memories I
>>>preserve this way will be something I want to see for the rest of my life.
>>>
>>>With all that said, if you're still interested in the Sanyo, I'd suggest
>>>trying it hands on in a store that will output the video to a decent
>>>monitor
>>>(don't rely on the camera's lcd or viewfinder). Try it under a variety of
>>>lighting conditions, particularly low-light. Do some quick pans to see
>>>how
>>>it handles motion artifacts. If you're satisfied with what you see,
>>>you'll
>>>probably be satisfied with a DVD produced from the video. Bear in mind
>>>that, regardless of how impeccable your technique, the video quality on
>>>the
>>>DVD will be degraded from what you see. The 1080i television issue is a
>>>red
>>>herring. A good up-converting 1080i television will hand a DVD as well or
>>>better than a standard def television. A poor-upconverting 1080i set will
>>>not. Finally, remember that commercial DVDs of films are not good sources
>>>to judge the 1080i upscaling ability for home video. Because of the
>>>difference in film and video frame rates, televisions (both SD and HD)
>>>have
>>>to do 3/2 pull-down -- showing some frames longer than other frames. This
>>>is complicated by having to handle interlace issues (that's what the "i"
>>>in
>>>1080i stands for). Because most people want to watch DVD movies on their
>>>HD
>>>set, a lot of attention is paid to the 3/2 pull-down system, with less
>>>paid
>>>to displaying 640i (standard definition) video material.
>>
>>
>> In the above post, please change all occurrences of "640i" to "480i"
>> (576i in PAL-land).
>>
>> Thank you!
>
>You are, of course, absolutely right. I don't know what I was thinking when
>I wrote that. Thanks for correcting it. :)
No problem, your honor. We all make mistakes from time to time. :)
--
Frank, Independent Consultant, New York, NY
[Please remove 'nojunkmail.' from address to reply via e-mail.]
Read Frank's thoughts on HDV at http://www.humanvalues.net/hdv/
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|