DVL-Digest 657 - Postings: Index frame-mode/Prog. Scan look+ Importing problem Letterboxing PD 150 colorbar question about engineering doc Wilt's DV codec comparison frame-mode/Prog. Scan look+ - Adam Wilt (1) Why is it terrible to transfer 30fps Progressive Scan > video to film? What does it end up looking like (I know, I know, field > conversion algorithms, etc, but...).; Horrible motion judder, twice as had as transferring 60i video. > (2) Why does everyone say to be cautious about creating any drastic > motion in 30fps? To me, it looks shuttery and blurred like film itself... Because it looks like film's motion rendering -- and video shooters unused to following film shooter's rules about motion wind up with stroby, unwatchable pans. More on this in my DVExpo notes on Digital Filmmaking at http://www.adamwilt.com/DVExpo.html. Cheers, Adam Wilt Importing problem - Adam Wilt I'm running a G3 PowerBook -- Pismo, 400MHZ, 256 Meg memory with a 12 gig > system drive and a 40 gig external Firewire drive... Once I click over to > 29.97 or 30, I start getting dropped frames out the yin yang. Is your FireWire drive one of the few that's guaranteed to actually work in this situation? Try capturing to the system drive, or better yet a docking bay drive from MCE Peripherals (http://www.powerbook1.com) or VST (sorry, no URL). I'll bet those will work for you. Doing both video and file transfer over the same 1394 link is still pushing the edge of the envelope at the current stage of development. Cheers, Adam Wilt Letterboxing - "Perry" Karl posted: >The argument that a low cost solution is likely to have poor performance may be correct or maybe not. You tell me. But it's probably still better than using some 20 year old DVE that puts the files from DV to composite and back again.< Probably not. The DVE could have cost the best part of ,000 if it was bought for broadcast use. A friend told me there was one in an auction he attended sold for 5UKP ()! For those who wonder what we are talking about, DVE (Digital Video Effects) boxes are what is used in linear edit suites to do page turns and other fancy effects. They will also of course do simple effects like letterboxing. The early ones work with composite video but this won't matter greatly for recording to VHS. They are substantial boxes and not for the faint hearted, but if you have the room then why not! It would also be interesting to hear from folk about the RT boards now available, as to whether they can letterbox in good quality direct to tape. Perry Mitchell Video Facilities http://www.perrybits.co.uk/ PD 150 colorbar - Adam Wilt Thanks for checking them for me! You bring up a great point, do you think > I should also make up a "Colorbar" setup at "0 IRE"? Since I don't have a VX2000/PD150, I can't help you, because I don't know how the RGB stills on memory stick get mapped into the YUV video color space. > Not looking forward to the writers and feature actors strike next year! Sounds like an unstoppable train wreck. Lay in the supplies for a long famine. :-( question about engineering doc - "Perry" Vidiot is on a tight rope of information accuracy! 1) You can certainly have postscript versions of both Arial and Times New Roman 2) There are 3 versions of U-Matic. In PAL we called them Low Band, High Band and SP, but I'm not sure you got the same in NTSC land. Low Band didn't have a dedicated Linear Timecode track. Perry Mitchell Video Facilities http://www.perrybits.co.uk/ Wilt's DV codec comparison - Adam Wilt I installed QT 5 after reading the comparison, and the compression is > better and faster, just as described. But the compression still > doesn't match up to Sony's DSR-30. > > I have some video with titles in it that was output by a Media100. I > played it from the M100 to the DSR-30 via S-video, then brought it in > from the DSR-30 to FCP 1.2.5 via Firewire. When I watch the titles, > the mosquito noise isn't visible in playback and it's hardly > noticeable in frame-by-frame. When I overlay an FCP title, the FCP > title's mosquito noise looks horrible by comparison, noticeable in > playback and very noticeable in still frame. Alas, you can't really comapre them this way. The M100 titles brought in through Y/C have been prefiltered by the analog output of the M100, and prefiltered again by the analog input on the DSR-30. All the pathological high frequencies have been rounded off before they hit the hardware codec. If you render text in FCP without any filtering to soften edges, you're handing the codec an uncompressible, infinitely sharp transitition. I would love to test the Sony codec against the various software codecs. The only way I know of to fake up a fair comparison is to render the text at the M100's highest quality level, and then record out via FireWire to the DSR-30. That runs the pix through the Sony DVBK codec on the media100 (I'm thinking of the iFinish here, you may not have the hardware DV option on yours) without benefit of analog prefiltering. I'll try to run such a test in the coming month. Should be interesting. Cheers, Adam Wilt (diese posts stammen von der DV-L Mailingliste - THX to Adam Wilt and Perry Mitchell :-) [up] |
 slashCAM  News HD Camcorder database One-on-One Cam comparison About our tests About us |
|
|
