Posted by Nappy on 01/03/06 20:00

"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.
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Back to original message]