Posted by Smarty on 01/03/06 19:41

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
>
>
>

[Back to original message]