Logo Logo
Video 8 DV komprimieren

DV Video 8 Compress

Frage von eduardkiefel:
Mai 2010

Hello s.alle,

have with a Sony Digital 8 Cam, Video 8 tapes digitized, and would now archived.

I am now unclear whether one can reduce these files (not necessarily compact) without image information is lost.

When compressing or Recode will always be lost. But is not that the data rate of DV stream a multiple of the (real) image information is an ordinary video 8. Not let these (possibly unnecessary) information to filter out. Or can not convert that 1to1. Auchtung: I mean: not cut out unused or boring parts of the video.

Thank you for your reply.


Edward Kiefel

Antwort von tommyb:

Na can compress your material is clearly still a bit more - no question.

And so, while the quality is bad, but does not paint the way you like it s.die wall, because depending on the settings of the re-encoding can be seen with the naked eye, no difference between original and "copy".

DV is a codec which is not really intended for archiving, rather than a codec with which you work. Of course you can archive synonymous DV files, if necessary, eat only these unnecessarily Space. Will they also cut no longer synonymous (or is planning not least in the near future), then you can safely compress it with a more efficient codec.

Here you have the following choice:
1st MPEG 2
2nd H.263 (DivX / XviD)
3rd h.264

1st MPEG2
Is a fixed standard, the files can be played should be synonymous in 20 years anyway.
File size at about 30% identical quality (7500 kbit / s).

2nd H.263 (DivX / XviD)
Will be aware, the first form of MPEG4 and very efficient and recourcenschonend. The standard is also relatively fixed and the files are widespread. In 20 years there should be no problem. The only problem may be when the video material "Interlaced" is. The encoder of DivX and XviD, although one can see INTERLACED coding before (you can select), but whether the decoders (ie the video player that supports ...).
File size in identical quality as DV about 20% (about 5000 kbit / s).

3rd h.264
My favorite. Very efficient - depending on the video encoder used synonymous should be playable in the future (eg if one uses the MainConcept Reference for coding, then with security). INTERLACED is almost no problem - could be similar to H.263 but his (must be supported).
File size in identical quality as DV about 12% to 15% (about 3000-3750 kbit / s).

When you were a little ready money for the encoder to spend, then I would put to you the MainConcept Reference Encoder s.Herz. The MPEG2 and h.264 is very good. For DivX / XivD you take the solution of DivX.com s.besten (da gabs times before one of the encoder is called Dr. DivX and undertook almost all the settings yourself).

If you want to spend no money, then take the program MeGUI. All this can save MPEG2. h.264 is created with the free x.264 encoder, which is currently still in (highly advanced) development. This means that the files were created with it could possibly (to be rather unlikely) play in the future only with errors (but really only happens if one uses the special features - these are but NEVER in MeGUI activated and may be synonymous not activate it) .

If you all too much, then take a program like SUPER. However, this has very poor quality in MPEG2, H.263 looks quite ok to h.264 could be more. But it is free, and very easy to use ...

Antwort von Jott:

That's all Quark. Let everything in DV, then it is lossless, and you can always synonymous loss and elegantly cut it if you like. It is perfectly next to it, ruining the material unnecessarily. Storage requirements? Oh yes, nearly 100 tapes fit on a 1GB disk, not necessarily ruinous.

Antwort von srone:

"Jott" wrote:
That's all Quark. Let everything in DV, then it is lossless, and you can always synonymous loss and elegantly cut it if you like. It is perfectly next to it, ruining the material unnecessarily. Storage requirements? Oh yes, nearly 100 tapes fit on a 1GB disk, not necessarily ruinous.

did not know that dv coded as efficiently .;-), probably mean 1tb.



Antwort von eduardkiefel:

Hello TommyB,
Hello s.alle,

@ TommyB

Thanks for the info. I am working a bit with the issue and would describe myself as (advanced) Beginners. Your information is helpful and will help me but my "curiosity" is not quite satisfied.

Perhaps a few details to better understanding:

The videos are first converted to DVD compliant anyway mpg2 and burned to DVD.

But since I am an avid art fan and hoffungsvoll look into the future, I think that zukünfitig, synonymous in distant future (10-20 years), technologies are developed that allow a real image enhancement.

Maybe I'm too optimistic and is synonymous to me clear that we still do not know now is what will be developed and what the source material you will need. But I want the original material as possible can "affect" and shrink the files yet. (Hmm, I do not know if this is a Wiederspruch with current technology stand)

I did not compress or reduce s.ein Re-Coding thought. But can hear from your information "" that this probably will not be possible.

In the motorbikes possibly future possibilities, I would not like to lose image information which later may be valuable or even could be important for a restoration.

That's why I said there something like more control information in the DV stream (when it is something like at all) which are only required for the recording on the PC, no picture information can be filtered out and contain bendenkenlos.

Or something like a reduction of the information in the color space (DV 4.2.0?) If something like go. Brings a reduction in the amount of data at all?

Video 8 or VHS image information would be much less data than included as a Recording with a real DV camera DV recording inc.

Sorry for my potentially exaggerated claims and maybe my little knowledge. Thank you for your patience.


Edward Kiefel

Antwort von srone:

So reduction of the color would be the worst choice, because with significant associated quality loss, filter out of information is not synonymous, there is no or only minimally present, what you imagine something like pack and as a rar or zip, but unfortunately such packers are at video data is not very effective in 90-95% of original size.
jott has never seen all right, let it as a dv, buy ne 1tb external panel (there are s.ca ¬ 55), and saving you the code what so synonymous takes time.



Antwort von tommyb:

Digital Video is a data stream from one and 0th Here it is not possible given 1's or 0's simply filter out certain so with a filter to thereby omitting unnecessary image information. The DV codec s.sich these unnecessary information has been sent packing, because an hour of uncompressed 4:4:4 material at 720x576 at 25 frames takes about 90 GB one (DV = 13 GB).

Color information can be removed no longer synonymous, because DV is 4:2:0 and thus already so inferior as it gets.

The only way that you have is only the compact with more efficient codecs. DV is an intra-frame codec, meaning that each frame is compressed individually, independently of the predecessor or successor. So one might say, IT is just a continuation of JPEG images (it is effectively synonymous yes, only slightly compressed, with other techniques).

Efficient can be such a stream ONLY with inter-frame compression based codec. These create "Group of Pictures (GOP). Each GOP has a number see picture in her closet. These images are in turn

- I-frames (independent frames, very large)
- P-frames (frames that only the difference from the previous frame, store small amount of memory required)
- B-frames may include (frames all the difference to the previous and subsequent frame, extremely low memory requirements)

Depending on the codec used this GOP are used more or less efficient.

DV as intra-frame codec ONLY consists of I-frames - so it requires pretty much synonymous for good quality space.

MPEG2 in turn, can have eg 15 frames in a GOP, which must in turn follow certain strict pattern (eg IPBBPBBP etc.).

H.263 can accommodate many frames in a GOP (eg 250), these should be located so as with MPEG2 must abide by a strict order s.sich synonymous. It can, however, many B-frames are used (obs makes sense, usually decides. The encoder).

h.264 works such as H.263, only here the individual frame types can be arranged totally wild. A B-frame may be synonymous equal s.Anfang of the stream are the I-frame does not necessarily s.erster position. It can follow one after the other 16 B-frames (one standing Picture no changes would be stored as extreme efficient), etc.

To all this, there are various accuracies in the detection of motion vectors. For the encoders the picture divided into small squares, called macro blocks. These are great for DV, MPEG2 and H.263 16x16 pixels. If the encoder for example, two images of a fixed change in just one large 16x16 macroblock, this is exactly stored macroblock new - the rest is simply taken over from the other frame (the DV does not, for example - because of intra-frame).

macroblocks with h.264 in turn may have a size of 4x4 pixels - ie turn it compresses so small changes much more efficient than other codecs.

The Sun was a small excerpt from the art department. The actual question is only: What do I need?

If all depends.

DV has the wonderful advantage that it can be cut to even the slowest computers without problems. As each frame is compressed independently, is a frame is displayed when jumping in the timeline without much delay.

wait at the intra-frame codecs you have to depend on the codec and the speed of the system, because these codecs work more efficient and more compact in the time axis "forward". Have you an example in point is the stream in one GOP in there which has 250 frames and you have caught Frame No. 235, is first the very first frames are decoded, then all subsequent and then only your 235es. If the decoder is slow (real time is slow), you may have to wait 9 seconds till your frame is displayed.

In MPEG2 that's not so bad because since the GOP have 15 frames a rule, ie the cut is pretty fast. In H.263, it takes quite a while longer, with h.264 the wait is much higher, because the decoder must operate much more effort to restore all frames (in order to show you your desired).


Antwort von beiti:

"Eduardkiefel" wrote:
Video 8 or VHS image information would be much less data than included as a Recording with a real DV camera DV recording inc.
Theoretically yes, but you can not filter out as easy. Video 8 and VHS're analog format, which themselves have no clear performance and a really good VHS recorder will always create something more than a mediocre Resolutionund color intensity, but still suffer losses when copying - as opposed to a digital format such as DV, is the clear ceilings, and for the data fed repeatedly reproduced 1:1.
If you digitize analog recordings, so they are pressed into a digital screen, a process is inherently lossy and not with each unit equally well (comparable to the scanning of photos). The grid can not be refined enough to really get the final details of the analog original - despite the fact, so synonymous that it produces a lot of garbage.
A video-tape at least 8 to 99.9% loss can digitize, you would need actually a much better format than DV. The fact that the original computer images look better than those in video 8 remains unaffected - as well as a 6 MP digital photo looks generally much sharper than a six-MP-scan, but its not all the subtleties of the analog template includes.

Antwort von eduardkiefel:

Hello s.alle,

super. Thank you so much for your answers. My questions about this Toppic all are answered completely.

FYI: I have 2 x 1 TB external disks is being mirrored on both the same.

1st 220 GB s.echtem DV material synonymous with a DV Camera Date
2nd 320 GB of Video 8 to DV material (which I would want to compress ...)
3rd compress again estimated 500-800 GB VHS / S-VHS to DV material (ADVC-300 which I would want synonymous.)

I guess the data will initially remain in the DV format. There it is the Video 8 and VHS tapes up to 20 years and have more on your back. I do not think that I may be transferred again.

A big praise s.dieses Forum and the Ladies and Gentlemen this forum fill with life. As fast and qualified answers you see otherwise rarely or not at all.

Thanks again and a nice weekend.


Edward Kiefel

Antworten zu ähnlichen Fragen:
video ts.bup; video-ts.ifo; video ts.vob; Video-Dateien
Unterschied "Womble MPEG Video Wizard" und bhv "Easy Video"?
Blackmagic: Video Assist 3.9, RAW 2.8 und Desktop Video 12.4.1 Updates
Text-zu-Video KI jetzt auch von Google: Imagen Video
VHS-Video auf DVD mit Magix Video deLuxe 2004 Plus brennen
Qualitätsunterschied zwischen I-Link oder Video / S-Video-Überspielung???
Neuer Patch Video deluxe / Video Pro X
Wie kann ich meinen geschriebenen Text in ein Video umwandeln? Mit der Zielperson im VIdeo sprechen?
Nikon Z50 vorgestellt: Erste spiegellose 20.9 MP APS-C Kamera mit Z-Mount, 4K Video und 30p 8MP Video Mode
MAGIX Content: Video Deluxe und Video Pro X mit integrierter Musik- und Stockvideo-Bibliothek
Sony stellt Sony Alpha 7R IV mit 61 MP, Eye-AF für Video und 4K 8 Bit Video vor
Video-Editing per Textkommando: Nach Text-zu-Bild kommt Text-zu-Video
Video mit luecken in Video ohne Luecken
Video via IP ?
miniDIN, S-Video,...
5,7K Video abspielen?
Video -> DVD
Video erstellen
video am compi
ppt 2 video
Streifen im video
Video schneiden

weitere Themen:

Adobe After Effects
Adobe Premiere Pro
After effects
Apple Final Cut Pro
Avid Media Composer
Final Cut
MAGIX video deLuxe
Pinnacle Studio