Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"PTravel" makes the claim that you can't make frame accurate
cuts in MPEG. (See the thread: "What product do you think is
best for AVI to DVD?" ) So I finally made this proposal:

> Why don't you use the free trial of VideoReDo
> www.VideoReDo.com to cut up a MPEG file and compare the resulting
> file with the original file; see for yourself.

"PTravel"'s response:

I've experimented with VideoReDo when doing video extraction from my Tivo
(which produces non-DVD compliant mpeg2). VideoReDo did not let me do
frame-accurate edits though, of course, it didn't matter when all I wanted
to do was chop out commercials.

Luck;
Ken

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:kMSdnTbh6LaCtZDfRVn-hg@giganews.com...
> "PTravel" makes the claim that you can't make frame accurate
> cuts in MPEG. (See the thread: "What product do you think is
> best for AVI to DVD?" ) So I finally made this proposal:
>
> > Why don't you use the free trial of VideoReDo
> > www.VideoReDo.com to cut up a MPEG file and compare the resulting
> > file with the original file; see for yourself.
>
> "PTravel"'s response:
>
> I've experimented with VideoReDo when doing video extraction from my Tivo
> (which produces non-DVD compliant mpeg2). VideoReDo did not let me do
> frame-accurate edits though, of course, it didn't matter when all I wanted
> to do was chop out commercials.

I don't need help with VideoReDo because I have no use for it. As I've
said, I edit video projects, I don't trim commercials out of TV programs
that I've captured using USB toys.

VideoReDo, as well as the other tools you've identifed, are probably fine
for hobbyists who want to compile a DVD of Survivor episodes. They're not
appropriate for anyone doing any serious editing and authoring.

If there's a way to make VideoReDo do frame-accurate edits without rendering
or re-transcoding, that's very nice. It's also of no particular interest to
anyone who wants to create video projects from AVI (you might, btw, look at
the subject line of the thread which was about going from AVI to MPEG).

>
> Luck;
> Ken
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Don't forget. There are a lot of people out there who actually do think that
MPEG-2 is somehow a higher quality video than DV. So, the toy maket abounds.

"PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
news:374t40F5ahd8sU1@individual.net...
>
> "Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:kMSdnTbh6LaCtZDfRVn-hg@giganews.com...
> > "PTravel" makes the claim that you can't make frame accurate
> > cuts in MPEG. (See the thread: "What product do you think is
> > best for AVI to DVD?" ) So I finally made this proposal:
> >
> > > Why don't you use the free trial of VideoReDo
> > > www.VideoReDo.com to cut up a MPEG file and compare the resulting
> > > file with the original file; see for yourself.
> >
> > "PTravel"'s response:
> >
> > I've experimented with VideoReDo when doing video extraction from my
Tivo
> > (which produces non-DVD compliant mpeg2). VideoReDo did not let me do
> > frame-accurate edits though, of course, it didn't matter when all I
wanted
> > to do was chop out commercials.
>
> I don't need help with VideoReDo because I have no use for it. As I've
> said, I edit video projects, I don't trim commercials out of TV programs
> that I've captured using USB toys.
>
> VideoReDo, as well as the other tools you've identifed, are probably fine
> for hobbyists who want to compile a DVD of Survivor episodes. They're not
> appropriate for anyone doing any serious editing and authoring.
>
> If there's a way to make VideoReDo do frame-accurate edits without
rendering
> or re-transcoding, that's very nice. It's also of no particular interest
to
> anyone who wants to create video projects from AVI (you might, btw, look
at
> the subject line of the thread which was about going from AVI to MPEG).
>
> >
> > Luck;
> > Ken
> >
> >
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Digital Video Solutions" <video@digitalvideosolutionsNOSPAM.com> wrote in
message news:sMbPd.24466$pc5.24380@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> Don't forget. There are a lot of people out there who actually do think
> that
> MPEG-2 is somehow a higher quality video than DV. So, the toy maket
> abounds.
>

Your camcorder's DV Quality is of little interest to most. It is only
an intermediate stage on the way to MPEG-2 in a DVD. But you
are right that MPEG-2 is valued by many; for instance; anyone who
makes a DVD, all the major movie studios, the broadcast networks,
cable and satellite systems.

Still if you want to spend many hours turning your "Higher Quality"
DV into DVD compliant MPEG-2 that could be slightly "Better" in
some way, have at it. Me I'll settle for MPEG-2 video captures that
are ready to author into DVDs what, when played, provide video
that looks exactly the same the source.

Luck;
Ken

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:WN6dnQQtqcA_z5DfRVn-jw@giganews.com...
>
> "Digital Video Solutions" <video@digitalvideosolutionsNOSPAM.com> wrote in
> message news:sMbPd.24466$pc5.24380@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> > Don't forget. There are a lot of people out there who actually do think
> > that
> > MPEG-2 is somehow a higher quality video than DV. So, the toy maket
> > abounds.
> >
>
> Your camcorder's DV Quality is of little interest to most.

Sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense. The format is of interest to
anyone who wants to edit video. Mpeg is a delivery format, and not one that
is amenable to editing.

> It is only
> an intermediate stage on the way to MPEG-2 in a DVD.

Well, yes, but that's like saying computers are of no interest to anyone
producing a DVD because they are only an intermediate vehicle on the way to
a television set.

> But you
> are right that MPEG-2 is valued by many; for instance; anyone who
> makes a DVD, all the major movie studios, the broadcast networks,
> cable and satellite systems.

None of the major movie studioes, none of the broadcast networks, and no
other content producers edit projects in mpeg. Cable and satellite are
delivery systems -- their only concern is bandwidth.

>
> Still if you want to spend many hours turning your "Higher Quality"
> DV into DVD compliant MPEG-2 that could be slightly "Better" in
> some way, have at it.

And that's the whole point. It's not "slightly better." It's dramatically
better. Retranscoded mpeg is not broadcast quality. DV-codec-encoded AVI
is above broadcast quality. Some people are happy with VHS quality video --
perhaps you're one of those people.

> Me I'll settle for MPEG-2 video captures that
> are ready to author into DVDs

But cannot be edited like an AVI. Your VideoReDo is not an NLE. It doesn't
do titles, transitions, allow color or gamma corrections, permit
compositing, do insert edits, etc. It's useful for one thing and only one
thing: simple cuts edits of mpeg video.

> what, when played, provide video
> that looks exactly the same the source.

Utter and complete nonsense. The best commercially-produced DVD will not
look exactly the same as the source video. A good transcode of an AVI will
come close, but the differences are easily detectable. A real-time mpeg
capture, retranscoded and compressed by DVD Shrink will not even come
remotely close.

>
> Luck;
> Ken
>
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
news:3754s9F58s43iU1@individual.net...
>
> "Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:WN6dnQQtqcA_z5DfRVn-jw@giganews.com...
>>
>> "Digital Video Solutions" <video@digitalvideosolutionsNOSPAM.com> wrote
>> in
>> message news:sMbPd.24466$pc5.24380@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>> > Don't forget. There are a lot of people out there who actually do think
>> > that
>> > MPEG-2 is somehow a higher quality video than DV. So, the toy maket
>> > abounds.
>> >
>>
>> Your camcorder's DV Quality is of little interest to most.
>
> Sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense. The format is of interest to
> anyone who wants to edit video. Mpeg is a delivery format, and not one
> that
> is amenable to editing.
>
>> It is only
>> an intermediate stage on the way to MPEG-2 in a DVD.
>
> Well, yes, but that's like saying computers are of no interest to anyone
> producing a DVD because they are only an intermediate vehicle on the way
> to
> a television set.
>
>> But you
>> are right that MPEG-2 is valued by many; for instance; anyone who
>> makes a DVD, all the major movie studios, the broadcast networks,
>> cable and satellite systems.
>
> None of the major movie studioes, none of the broadcast networks, and no
> other content producers edit projects in mpeg. Cable and satellite are
> delivery systems -- their only concern is bandwidth.
>
>>
>> Still if you want to spend many hours turning your "Higher Quality"
>> DV into DVD compliant MPEG-2 that could be slightly "Better" in
>> some way, have at it.
>
> And that's the whole point. It's not "slightly better." It's
> dramatically
> better. Retranscoded mpeg is not broadcast quality. DV-codec-encoded AVI
> is above broadcast quality. Some people are happy with VHS quality
> video --
> perhaps you're one of those people.
>
>> Me I'll settle for MPEG-2 video captures that
>> are ready to author into DVDs
>
> But cannot be edited like an AVI. Your VideoReDo is not an NLE. It
> doesn't
> do titles, transitions, allow color or gamma corrections, permit
> compositing, do insert edits, etc. It's useful for one thing and only one
> thing: simple cuts edits of mpeg video.
>
>> what, when played, provide video
>> that looks exactly the same the source.
>
> Utter and complete nonsense. The best commercially-produced DVD will not
> look exactly the same as the source video. A good transcode of an AVI
> will
> come close, but the differences are easily detectable. A real-time mpeg
> capture, retranscoded and compressed by DVD Shrink will not even come
> remotely close.
>


You can keep changing the question with all your strawman arguments,
but you still won't and obviously have never in the past TRIED to produce
good results using any process than the one you espouse. You say you
have tried VideoReDo, and it won't make frame accurate cuts. No one
else that has ever tried it would come here and make that claim.

You say there are tremendous problems with the quality of MPEG that
hasn't spent time as AVI. When called on that you say the issue is that
MPEG can't be edited. When directed to the new MPEG frame accurate
editors, you say they can't work or change it to be about adding various
effects. You even had to add DVDShrink to the real-time capture process,
when you know it was mentioned only as a means to allow a slightly over
sized capture to remain usable, not as a routine part of the process.

Your assertion that Direct to DVD Compliant MPEG Capture, cannot
produce results that are indistinguishable from that video source (not the
output of the movie camera on the movie lot, what the guy at home has
as a source.); flies in the face of, not only my experience but many others.

If done properly it is the easiest and fastest way to produce a true copy
of the viewing experience provided by the source. ( Cable, Satellite, VCR,
TV tuner)

It is certainly the case that if you are working with material that
requires the type of editing that would actually require a re-encoding if
it were already DVD compliant MPEG, like your camcorder DV, then
it would be only common sense to edit it in the format it already is in.
This does not make your assertion that "MPEG can't be edited" valid.
It certainly doesn't mean that your characterization of the quality of
MPEG-2 that was made in real-time and without the "benefit" of
having spent time as AVI, is any more valid.

Luck;
Ken

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:aPGdnc_lqM0v6ZDfRVn-vA@giganews.com...
>
> "PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
> news:3754s9F58s43iU1@individual.net...
>>
>> "Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:WN6dnQQtqcA_z5DfRVn-jw@giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "Digital Video Solutions" <video@digitalvideosolutionsNOSPAM.com> wrote
>>> in
>>> message news:sMbPd.24466$pc5.24380@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>> > Don't forget. There are a lot of people out there who actually do
>>> > think
>>> > that
>>> > MPEG-2 is somehow a higher quality video than DV. So, the toy maket
>>> > abounds.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Your camcorder's DV Quality is of little interest to most.
>>
>> Sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense. The format is of interest to
>> anyone who wants to edit video. Mpeg is a delivery format, and not one
>> that
>> is amenable to editing.
>>
>>> It is only
>>> an intermediate stage on the way to MPEG-2 in a DVD.
>>
>> Well, yes, but that's like saying computers are of no interest to anyone
>> producing a DVD because they are only an intermediate vehicle on the way
>> to
>> a television set.
>>
>>> But you
>>> are right that MPEG-2 is valued by many; for instance; anyone who
>>> makes a DVD, all the major movie studios, the broadcast networks,
>>> cable and satellite systems.
>>
>> None of the major movie studioes, none of the broadcast networks, and no
>> other content producers edit projects in mpeg. Cable and satellite are
>> delivery systems -- their only concern is bandwidth.
>>
>>>
>>> Still if you want to spend many hours turning your "Higher Quality"
>>> DV into DVD compliant MPEG-2 that could be slightly "Better" in
>>> some way, have at it.
>>
>> And that's the whole point. It's not "slightly better." It's
>> dramatically
>> better. Retranscoded mpeg is not broadcast quality. DV-codec-encoded
>> AVI
>> is above broadcast quality. Some people are happy with VHS quality
>> video --
>> perhaps you're one of those people.
>>
>>> Me I'll settle for MPEG-2 video captures that
>>> are ready to author into DVDs
>>
>> But cannot be edited like an AVI. Your VideoReDo is not an NLE. It
>> doesn't
>> do titles, transitions, allow color or gamma corrections, permit
>> compositing, do insert edits, etc. It's useful for one thing and only
>> one
>> thing: simple cuts edits of mpeg video.
>>
>>> what, when played, provide video
>>> that looks exactly the same the source.
>>
>> Utter and complete nonsense. The best commercially-produced DVD will not
>> look exactly the same as the source video. A good transcode of an AVI
>> will
>> come close, but the differences are easily detectable. A real-time mpeg
>> capture, retranscoded and compressed by DVD Shrink will not even come
>> remotely close.
>>
>
>
> You can keep changing the question with all your strawman arguments,
> but you still won't and obviously have never in the past TRIED to produce
> good results using any process than the one you espouse. You say you
> have tried VideoReDo, and it won't make frame accurate cuts. No one
> else that has ever tried it would come here and make that claim.

And you're the only person here who would claim that VideoReDo is a NLE.

Ken, who cares if it can produce frame-accurate edits. The bottom line is
this: if you're editing video, use video editing software. VideoReDo is not
substitute for FCP. Premiere, Liquid Edition, or even Studio or Microsoft
MovieMaker.

If you're editing commercials out of TV shows that you've recorded, use
VideoReDo. NLEs are overkill and, clearly, you're unconcerned with quality
anyway.


>
> You say there are tremendous problems with the quality of MPEG that
> hasn't spent time as AVI.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Talk about "strawman arguments." That's not
what I said and you know it. Last time:

Trying to edit mpeg for anything other than your Survivor DVD compilations
is pointless because:

1. Transitions, corrections, compositing, etc. require re-rendering which
will SERIOUSLY impact the quality of the video in mpeg.

2. REAL editing programs either don't handle mpeg, or don't handle it well.
REAL editing programs don't do frame-accurate mpeg editing, except, perhaps,
a specialized few. I wouldn't know because REAL editors don't work in mpeg.

> When called on that you say the issue is that
> MPEG can't be edited.

No. Again you're wrong about what I said.

Mpeg can be edited -- just not well.

> When directed to the new MPEG frame accurate
> editors,

What new MPEG frame accurate editors? VideoReDo? Oh, please.

>you say they can't work or change it to be about adding various
> effects.

Wrong again.

You know what? This is really pointless. You have a bug up your butt for
some reason and are more interested in making this about personalities than
about video.

> You even had to add DVDShrink to the real-time capture process,
> when you know it was mentioned only as a means to allow a slightly over
> sized capture to remain usable, not as a routine part of the process.

Hey, you're the one who recommended DVD Shrink which, of course, requires
retranscoding and degradation of the video.

>
> Your assertion that Direct to DVD Compliant MPEG Capture, cannot
> produce results that are indistinguishable from that video source (not the
> output of the movie camera on the movie lot, what the guy at home has
> as a source.); flies in the face of, not only my experience but many
> others.

Then you and many others have very, very, very little experience.
Commercial-quality mpeg is the result of multiple-pass transcoding. The
best realtime hardware transcoders (which are used by the satellite and
cable providers) don't produce output comparable to a commercial DVD.

>
> If done properly it is the easiest and fastest way to produce a true copy
> of the viewing experience provided by the source. ( Cable, Satellite, VCR,
> TV tuner)

See, this is what I'm talking about. You're speaking from the perspective
of someone copying television shows and removing commercials. THAT is not
video editing. I don't doubt that you're satisfied with the quality of
video that you get from programs like VideoReDo and DVD Shrink.

Spend a little time over at rec.video.production and www.dvinfo.net where
the professionals gather and run your theories by them.

>
> It is certainly the case that if you are working with material that
> requires the type of editing that would actually require a re-encoding if
> it were already DVD compliant MPEG, like your camcorder DV, then
> it would be only common sense to edit it in the format it already is in.
> This does not make your assertion that "MPEG can't be edited" valid.


I never said that MPEG can't be edited. I said it can't be edited easily or
well.

> It certainly doesn't mean that your characterization of the quality of
> MPEG-2 that was made in real-time and without the "benefit" of
> having spent time as AVI, is any more valid.

Your mischaracterization of what I said may not mean it, but the reality of
video capture certainly does.

>
> Luck;
> Ken
>
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

> 2. REAL editing programs either don't handle mpeg, or don't handle it
well.
> REAL editing programs don't do frame-accurate mpeg editing, except,
perhaps,
> a specialized few. I wouldn't know because REAL editors don't work in
mpeg.

And that's a fact. Even using the Main Concept plugin for PP, mpeg editing
is clunky at best.

For simple slicing and dicing of material already encoded into mpeg format,
V-Redo, Womble, etc are fine. And they can, in fact, do frame accurate
edits. But there's no way anyone can say that mpeg'd material is the
preferred format for video editing. Unfortunately, people using the Hauppage
line of products have no choice because _all_ of their captures are hardware
mpeg encoded. Since I use an ATI card, I prefer to capture to Huffyuv avi's,
edit in Premier and encode with Procoder. And I'll match my two-pass VBR
encodes against a five year old hardware encoding algorithm anyday of the
week.

> You know what? This is really pointless. You have a bug up your butt for
> some reason and are more interested in making this about personalities
than
> about video.

The Hauppage/Video-Redo/Vegas crowd in here can be downright arrogant
sometimes.

> > If done properly it is the easiest and fastest way to produce a true
copy
> > of the viewing experience provided by the source. ( Cable, Satellite,
VCR,
> > TV tuner)

Easiest and fastest usually do not add up to quality.

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Chuck U. Farley" <chuckufarley@dyslexia.com> wrote in message
news:GzqPd.6014$a06.1863@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>> 2. REAL editing programs either don't handle mpeg, or don't handle it
> well.
>> REAL editing programs don't do frame-accurate mpeg editing, except,
> perhaps,
>> a specialized few. I wouldn't know because REAL editors don't work in
> mpeg.
>
> And that's a fact. Even using the Main Concept plugin for PP, mpeg editing
> is clunky at best.
>
> For simple slicing and dicing of material already encoded into mpeg
> format,
> V-Redo, Womble, etc are fine. And they can, in fact, do frame accurate
> edits. But there's no way anyone can say that mpeg'd material is the
> preferred format for video editing.


And No One ever said anything different, Except "PTravel" saying
that you can't do frame accurate edits.



> Unfortunately, people using the Hauppage
> line of products have no choice because _all_ of their captures are
> hardware
> mpeg encoded. Since I use an ATI card, I prefer to capture to Huffyuv
> avi's,
> edit in Premier and encode with Procoder. And I'll match my two-pass VBR
> encodes against a five year old hardware encoding algorithm anyday of the
> week.
>
>> You know what? This is really pointless. You have a bug up your butt
>> for
>> some reason and are more interested in making this about personalities
> than
>> about video.
>
> The Hauppage/Video-Redo/Vegas crowd in here can be downright arrogant
> sometimes.
>
>> > If done properly it is the easiest and fastest way to produce a true
> copy
>> > of the viewing experience provided by the source. ( Cable, Satellite,
> VCR,
>> > TV tuner)
>
> Easiest and fastest usually do not add up to quality.
>

Just who is being arrogant here? No one has said the way you
capture, edit, encode, author, or burn DVDs produces bad results.
No one on this side of the issue is saying you can't edit AVI.
We aren't saying the results that you see every day are impossible,
or the result of some lower standard of "Quality", as your side
often does.

I myself have often recommended your old, slow, method of
capture and DVD production to those who are working with
unedited material.

With the process that I and many others use, I save up some
of the video entertainment that arrives at my house, into DVD
format. When I playback that archived video it looks and
sounds in no way inferior or different from the way it looked
when it first arrived. Your side keeps saying this is a lie, that
it can't be, that there must be some "Degradation" that I am
unwilling to acknowledge. Isn't That arrogant?

It is your side that is saying, that your way is the Only REAL
Way. You are in effect saying that since we are not trying to
make movies from scratch, our faster and easier methods
don't count and must be inferior to your methods, just
because they aren't applicable to movie making. How
arrogant is that?

If "PTravel" had said you can't do a crossfade transition in
MPEG, I would have let it go. Those with the objective of
saving up professionally edited material, never need to do
such editing. But his false claims that frame accurate editing
of MPEG would require the introduction of horrendous
degradation, because (first the whole video then even if a
few frames) must be "re-transcoded", do impact on our
efforts.

All in all it appears to me that you old guard, the only way
to get good results is my way crowd, are the ones with
your noes in the air.

We will never agree, but the issue is here in this thread
for all to see, and at least one false claim hasn't gone
unanswered.

Luck;
Ken

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

PTRAVEL, Ken is kid, I think. Pretty much of a novice. I think you're
wasting your time.

Ken, Any compressed image is NOT ever going to be better than its
source.

I highly DOUBT that video-re-do does frame accurate MPEG cuts. More
probably just cuts at I Frames. Its a toy anyway.. who cares. ?

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Given the GOP structure of VBR or CBR MPEG-2, whether the video is captured
to or encoded to that format, frame accurate editing is not - and I repeat
NOT possible. The program and the manufacturer that claims this frame
accurate editing is in short stretching the truth, and anyone who believes
it is easily fooled.

MPEG-2 when encoded, whether using VBR or CBR to a GOP with the IBBP frame
structure has full frames only about 1/3 of the time. Every frame in between
I frames is made up of information from subsequent and previous frames in
the stream. These "so-called" frame accurate MPEG-2 editing packages may
have the ability to take the information from the BBP frames to create a
pseudo "full frame" but that is still NOT frame accurate. The only way these
programs could come near to frame accurate editing would be to negate the
BBP frames near the cut in favor of the nearest I frame.

If this is not the case then the whole structure of the GOP would be trashed
by the cut. The GOP cannot have a structure of IIBPIPBIPPI, which is what
you get if true frame accurate editing is allowed. It's purely simple. The
MPEG GOP standard is 15 and is divisable by 3. The explanation below (which
is information from the Motion Pictures Engineers Group proper) shows that
it is impossible to do frame accurate editing on MPEG files with the IBBP
frame structure. ONLY I frame MPEG can be editing in frame accurate mode.
The GOP (Group of Pictures) Pattern is the arrangement of frames in an MPEG
video stream. The GOP consists of a variable number of I, B, and P frames.
There is not a standard way of formatting the groups, and different
manufacturers may choose quite varied GOP arrangement. One may use I, B, and
P frames in specific groups arranged as IBBP, while another may use an
arrangement which incorporates on I and P frames, and others I-frames only.

The GOP interval and size will determine the pattern of the frame types in
the MPEG stream. It is common practice to keep the number of pictures in the
GOP at a number that is evenly divisible by the interval. So, if the
interval is 3 then the GOP has to be divisible by 3. MPEG has a standard GOP
of 15 with the interval of 3.

Using an IBBP arrangement will yield a low data rate video with the best
quality. When you use I-frames only the quality is much higher as is the
data rate also higher. When you want to keep bandwidth to a minimum and
maintain quality it is good to use the IBBP arrangement as the GOP.


"Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:aPGdnc_lqM0v6ZDfRVn-vA@giganews.com...
>
> "PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
> news:3754s9F58s43iU1@individual.net...
> >
> > "Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > news:WN6dnQQtqcA_z5DfRVn-jw@giganews.com...
> >>
> >> "Digital Video Solutions" <video@digitalvideosolutionsNOSPAM.com> wrote
> >> in
> >> message news:sMbPd.24466$pc5.24380@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> >> > Don't forget. There are a lot of people out there who actually do
think
> >> > that
> >> > MPEG-2 is somehow a higher quality video than DV. So, the toy maket
> >> > abounds.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Your camcorder's DV Quality is of little interest to most.
> >
> > Sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense. The format is of interest to
> > anyone who wants to edit video. Mpeg is a delivery format, and not one
> > that
> > is amenable to editing.
> >
> >> It is only
> >> an intermediate stage on the way to MPEG-2 in a DVD.
> >
> > Well, yes, but that's like saying computers are of no interest to anyone
> > producing a DVD because they are only an intermediate vehicle on the way
> > to
> > a television set.
> >
> >> But you
> >> are right that MPEG-2 is valued by many; for instance; anyone who
> >> makes a DVD, all the major movie studios, the broadcast networks,
> >> cable and satellite systems.
> >
> > None of the major movie studioes, none of the broadcast networks, and no
> > other content producers edit projects in mpeg. Cable and satellite are
> > delivery systems -- their only concern is bandwidth.
> >
> >>
> >> Still if you want to spend many hours turning your "Higher Quality"
> >> DV into DVD compliant MPEG-2 that could be slightly "Better" in
> >> some way, have at it.
> >
> > And that's the whole point. It's not "slightly better." It's
> > dramatically
> > better. Retranscoded mpeg is not broadcast quality. DV-codec-encoded
AVI
> > is above broadcast quality. Some people are happy with VHS quality
> > video --
> > perhaps you're one of those people.
> >
> >> Me I'll settle for MPEG-2 video captures that
> >> are ready to author into DVDs
> >
> > But cannot be edited like an AVI. Your VideoReDo is not an NLE. It
> > doesn't
> > do titles, transitions, allow color or gamma corrections, permit
> > compositing, do insert edits, etc. It's useful for one thing and only
one
> > thing: simple cuts edits of mpeg video.
> >
> >> what, when played, provide video
> >> that looks exactly the same the source.
> >
> > Utter and complete nonsense. The best commercially-produced DVD will
not
> > look exactly the same as the source video. A good transcode of an AVI
> > will
> > come close, but the differences are easily detectable. A real-time mpeg
> > capture, retranscoded and compressed by DVD Shrink will not even come
> > remotely close.
> >
>
>
> You can keep changing the question with all your strawman arguments,
> but you still won't and obviously have never in the past TRIED to produce
> good results using any process than the one you espouse. You say you
> have tried VideoReDo, and it won't make frame accurate cuts. No one
> else that has ever tried it would come here and make that claim.
>
> You say there are tremendous problems with the quality of MPEG that
> hasn't spent time as AVI. When called on that you say the issue is that
> MPEG can't be edited. When directed to the new MPEG frame accurate
> editors, you say they can't work or change it to be about adding various
> effects. You even had to add DVDShrink to the real-time capture process,
> when you know it was mentioned only as a means to allow a slightly over
> sized capture to remain usable, not as a routine part of the process.
>
> Your assertion that Direct to DVD Compliant MPEG Capture, cannot
> produce results that are indistinguishable from that video source (not the
> output of the movie camera on the movie lot, what the guy at home has
> as a source.); flies in the face of, not only my experience but many
others.
>
> If done properly it is the easiest and fastest way to produce a true
copy
> of the viewing experience provided by the source. ( Cable, Satellite, VCR,
> TV tuner)
>
> It is certainly the case that if you are working with material that
> requires the type of editing that would actually require a re-encoding if
> it were already DVD compliant MPEG, like your camcorder DV, then
> it would be only common sense to edit it in the format it already is in.
> This does not make your assertion that "MPEG can't be edited" valid.
> It certainly doesn't mean that your characterization of the quality of
> MPEG-2 that was made in real-time and without the "benefit" of
> having spent time as AVI, is any more valid.
>
> Luck;
> Ken
>
>
>