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

I have tons of old 8mm tapes that I'd like to bring into the digital
age (specifically to DVD). What I'd like to do is transfer all my raw
footage to DVD (or CD) at the maximum quality level with no
editing--just straight transfer.

Then, I'd like use those DVDs or CDs as "masters" to begin the long
process of editing into themed, authored DVDs.

I have a Mini DV camcorder but it does not have A/D passthrough
conversion capability so I will need a video capture device. Also, I
have not yet purchased a DVD burner.

I'd like some recommendations please. I've got my eye on some of the
Pinnacle Studio products for capture. Anyone have any experience with
them?

Also, I want maximum DVD player compatibility (i.e., play anywhere)
with regard to final DVD creation. Any software/hardware
recommendations would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

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

"MrTobor" <tobor8man@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111101564.390811.167540@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>I have tons of old 8mm tapes that I'd like to bring into the digital
> age (specifically to DVD). What I'd like to do is transfer all my raw
> footage to DVD (or CD) at the maximum quality level with no
> editing--just straight transfer.

Buy a stand alone recorder...Pioneer or Panasonic.

>
> Then, I'd like use those DVDs or CDs as "masters" to begin the long
> process of editing into themed, authored DVDs.

You can edit later in DVD Author.

>
> I have a Mini DV camcorder but it does not have A/D passthrough
> conversion capability so I will need a video capture device. Also, I
> have not yet purchased a DVD burner.
>
> I'd like some recommendations please. I've got my eye on some of the
> Pinnacle Studio products for capture. Anyone have any experience with
> them?
>
> Also, I want maximum DVD player compatibility (i.e., play anywhere)
> with regard to final DVD creation. Any software/hardware
> recommendations would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
>

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

"Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
news:113k515dk1qoo35@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "MrTobor" <tobor8man@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1111101564.390811.167540@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>I have tons of old 8mm tapes that I'd like to bring into the digital
>> age (specifically to DVD). What I'd like to do is transfer all my raw
>> footage to DVD (or CD) at the maximum quality level with no
>> editing--just straight transfer.
>
> Buy a stand alone recorder...Pioneer or Panasonic.

Do NOT buy a stand alone recorder.

The OP wants to archive analog video that will later be edited. He wants
the video at highest quality. Stand alone recorders transcode video to mpeg
and burn video DVDs. This entails significant compresion, which lowers
video quality, and results in a format that can only be edited with great
difficulty and subsequent quality loss.


>
>>
>> Then, I'd like use those DVDs or CDs as "masters" to begin the long
>> process of editing into themed, authored DVDs.
>
> You can edit later in DVD Author.
>
>>
>> I have a Mini DV camcorder but it does not have A/D passthrough
>> conversion capability so I will need a video capture device. Also, I
>> have not yet purchased a DVD burner.
>>
>> I'd like some recommendations please. I've got my eye on some of the
>> Pinnacle Studio products for capture. Anyone have any experience with
>> them?
>>
>> Also, I want maximum DVD player compatibility (i.e., play anywhere)
>> with regard to final DVD creation. Any software/hardware
>> recommendations would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
>>
>
>

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

"PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39um6aF5f9jj9U1@individual.net...
>
> "Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
> news:113k515dk1qoo35@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "MrTobor" <tobor8man@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1111101564.390811.167540@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>>I have tons of old 8mm tapes that I'd like to bring into the digital
>>> age (specifically to DVD). What I'd like to do is transfer all my raw
>>> footage to DVD (or CD) at the maximum quality level with no
>>> editing--just straight transfer.
>>
>> Buy a stand alone recorder...Pioneer or Panasonic.
>
> Do NOT buy a stand alone recorder.
>
> The OP wants to archive analog video that will later be edited.

He wants DVD. DVD. Brain dead?


>He wants the video at highest quality.

DV 25 mbit second is highest?


>Stand alone recorders transcode video to mpeg and burn video DVDs. This
>entails significant compresion, which lowers video quality, and results in
>a format that can only be edited with great difficulty and subsequent
>quality loss.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> Then, I'd like use those DVDs or CDs as "masters" to begin the long
>>> process of editing into themed, authored DVDs.
>>
>> You can edit later in DVD Author.
>>
>>>
>>> I have a Mini DV camcorder but it does not have A/D passthrough
>>> conversion capability so I will need a video capture device. Also, I
>>> have not yet purchased a DVD burner.
>>>
>>> I'd like some recommendations please. I've got my eye on some of the
>>> Pinnacle Studio products for capture. Anyone have any experience with
>>> them?
>>>
>>> Also, I want maximum DVD player compatibility (i.e., play anywhere)
>>> with regard to final DVD creation. Any software/hardware
>>> recommendations would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

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

In article <113knkahghg3qec@corp.supernews.com>,
"Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> writes:
>
> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:39um6aF5f9jj9U1@individual.net...
>>
>> "Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
>> news:113k515dk1qoo35@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>> "MrTobor" <tobor8man@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1111101564.390811.167540@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>>>I have tons of old 8mm tapes that I'd like to bring into the digital
>>>> age (specifically to DVD). What I'd like to do is transfer all my raw
>>>> footage to DVD (or CD) at the maximum quality level with no
>>>> editing--just straight transfer.
>>>
>>> Buy a stand alone recorder...Pioneer or Panasonic.
>>
>> Do NOT buy a stand alone recorder.
>>
>> The OP wants to archive analog video that will later be edited.
>
> He wants DVD. DVD. Brain dead?
>
He did say that he wanted to capture to DVD, subsequently edit
and then produce a final DVD. Actually, it isn't a really good
idea to do two concatenated (term of art, means multiple compression
decompression) of low rate MPEG2 -- DVD is a little too limited
at about 8-9mbps for the highest quality.

>
>
>>He wants the video at highest quality.
>
> DV 25 mbit second is highest?
>
DV 25mbit with good quality (current) encoders is damned good -- but
not quite as good as the nearly transparent DV50 or DigiBeta. Claiming
that DVD is 'highest quality' would be utilizing alot more poetic
license than claiming that DV25 is 'highest' quality.

One big quality issue is that neither DV25 nor MPEG2 like to see much noise
in the video, but DV25 with current generation encoders can deal with
more random content. It would make sense to use a super high quality
DV25 encoder (e.g. Canopus ADVC300), and then subsequently use a non-realtime
(non-causal filtering) MPEG2 encoder with lots of noise reduction. You
can get the benefits of noise reduction with almost NO artifacting and
no quality loss relative to consumer tape formats. Almost as good as using
'best quality' DV25 encoding, using almost unlimited MPEG2 bandwidth (e.g.
15mbps or faster) can be useful to allow the MPEG2 encoder to deal better
with totally random input (noise in consumer video.)

* When recording noisy video onto MPEG2, if there isn't a heap of
noise reduction, there is much less advantage to the inter-frame
compression. It is still more effective than DV25, but also more
artifact prone than just to ignore inter-frame information and just
use DV25 compression. (AFAIR, DV25 still tries to take advantage of
intra-frame similarity by optionally taking advantage of the similarity
of two fields, but the payload capability of DV25 allows for more
noise data.) When ignoring the noise in DCT domain compression, there
is some artifacting that makes it sometimes look worse than other
kinds of information limiting.


Perhaps the biggest theoretical loss of quality when mastering DV25 onto
MPEG2 is the mismatch of the 4:1:1 to 4:2:0 color sampling. This is almost
a non-issue given composite or color-under (consumer analog) video sources.

Basically, using DV25 before MPEG2 does limit the chroma response from
3+MHz to 1.4-1.5MHz... This is significantly greater chroma than what
can be supplied by Hi8, 8mm, BetaMax, SuperBeta, EDBeta, SVHS, laser disk,
OTA video, CED Video or any other common consumer video source. Consumer
video sources tend to be limited to approx 500kHz (or less) of color
data per component, except LD which can theoretically approach 1.2-1.5MHz
in both components, if some rules are bent. Otherwise, the chroma
bandwidth would tend to be limited to approx 1.2MHz and (afair 0.5MHz?)
(Using widerband LD chroma might introduce some artifacting on decoders
that aren't prepared to handle it.)

It is true that the realtime MPEG2 encoders (used in set-top DVD recorders)_
can be pretty good, but to get the maximum, noise free quality, it can
be better to use offline (often very slow) noise reduction. This slowness
can gain significant quality because of the potential for non-causal
filtering. (Offline noise reduction can look forwards and backwards in
time, while real time processing TENDS to be more limited.)

It isn't WRONG to use a set-top DVD recorder, and if one is used, then
just max-out the quality settings, and be careful about comet-tailing
(or other motion artifacts) when enabling the (very much needed)
online, real-time video noise reduction for MPEG2 encoding of noisy
consumer video.

John

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

"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
news1dqcu$2gka$1@news.iquest.net...
> In article <113knkahghg3qec@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> writes:
>>
>> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:39um6aF5f9jj9U1@individual.net...
>>>
>>> "Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
>>> news:113k515dk1qoo35@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>
>>>> "MrTobor" <tobor8man@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1111101564.390811.167540@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>I have tons of old 8mm tapes that I'd like to bring into the digital
>>>>> age (specifically to DVD). What I'd like to do is transfer all my raw
>>>>> footage to DVD (or CD) at the maximum quality level with no
>>>>> editing--just straight transfer.
>>>>
>>>> Buy a stand alone recorder...Pioneer or Panasonic.
>>>
>>> Do NOT buy a stand alone recorder.
>>>
>>> The OP wants to archive analog video that will later be edited.
>>
>> He wants DVD. DVD. Brain dead?
>>
> He did say that he wanted to capture to DVD, subsequently edit
> and then produce a final DVD. Actually, it isn't a really good
> idea to do two concatenated (term of art, means multiple compression
> decompression) of low rate MPEG2 -- DVD is a little too limited
> at about 8-9mbps for the highest quality.
>
>>
>>
>>>He wants the video at highest quality.
>>
>> DV 25 mbit second is highest?
>>
> DV 25mbit with good quality (current) encoders is damned good -- but
> not quite as good as the nearly transparent DV50 or DigiBeta. Claiming
> that DVD is 'highest quality' would be utilizing alot more poetic
> license than claiming that DV25 is 'highest' quality.
>
> One big quality issue is that neither DV25 nor MPEG2 like to see much
> noise
> in the video, but DV25 with current generation encoders can deal with
> more random content. It would make sense to use a super high quality
> DV25 encoder (e.g. Canopus ADVC300), and then subsequently use a
> non-realtime
> (non-causal filtering) MPEG2 encoder with lots of noise reduction. You
> can get the benefits of noise reduction with almost NO artifacting and
> no quality loss relative to consumer tape formats. Almost as good as
> using
> 'best quality' DV25 encoding, using almost unlimited MPEG2 bandwidth (e.g.
> 15mbps or faster) can be useful to allow the MPEG2 encoder to deal better
> with totally random input (noise in consumer video.)
>
> * When recording noisy video onto MPEG2, if there isn't a heap of
> noise reduction, there is much less advantage to the inter-frame
> compression. It is still more effective than DV25, but also more
> artifact prone than just to ignore inter-frame information and just
> use DV25 compression. (AFAIR, DV25 still tries to take advantage of
> intra-frame similarity by optionally taking advantage of the similarity
> of two fields, but the payload capability of DV25 allows for more
> noise data.) When ignoring the noise in DCT domain compression, there
> is some artifacting that makes it sometimes look worse than other
> kinds of information limiting.
>
>
> Perhaps the biggest theoretical loss of quality when mastering DV25 onto
> MPEG2 is the mismatch of the 4:1:1 to 4:2:0 color sampling. This is
> almost
> a non-issue given composite or color-under (consumer analog) video
> sources.
>
> Basically, using DV25 before MPEG2 does limit the chroma response from
> 3+MHz to 1.4-1.5MHz... This is significantly greater chroma than what
> can be supplied by Hi8, 8mm, BetaMax, SuperBeta, EDBeta, SVHS, laser disk,
> OTA video, CED Video or any other common consumer video source. Consumer
> video sources tend to be limited to approx 500kHz (or less) of color
> data per component, except LD which can theoretically approach 1.2-1.5MHz
> in both components, if some rules are bent. Otherwise, the chroma
> bandwidth would tend to be limited to approx 1.2MHz and (afair 0.5MHz?)
> (Using widerband LD chroma might introduce some artifacting on decoders
> that aren't prepared to handle it.)
>
> It is true that the realtime MPEG2 encoders (used in set-top DVD
> recorders)_
> can be pretty good, but to get the maximum, noise free quality, it can
> be better to use offline (often very slow) noise reduction. This slowness
> can gain significant quality because of the potential for non-causal
> filtering. (Offline noise reduction can look forwards and backwards in
> time, while real time processing TENDS to be more limited.)
>
> It isn't WRONG to use a set-top DVD recorder, and if one is used, then
> just max-out the quality settings, and be careful about comet-tailing
> (or other motion artifacts) when enabling the (very much needed)
> online, real-time video noise reduction for MPEG2 encoding of noisy
> consumer video.
>
> John

I do not disagree. But this individual is not going to research all of the
data, spend months of testing Codecs, etc. The set top boxes have various
forms of noise reduction geared for NTSC. Many of these are equal to very
expensive proprietary approaches. I presumed these variables in my
statement.

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

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:52:24 -0800, "Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote:

> What I'd like to do is transfer all my raw
>>>> footage to DVD (or CD) at the maximum quality level with no
>>>> editing--just straight transfer.
>>>
>>> Buy a stand alone recorder...Pioneer or Panasonic.
>>
>> Do NOT buy a stand alone recorder.
>>
>> The OP wants to archive analog video that will later be edited.
>
>He wants DVD. DVD. Brain dead?

AIUI, he wants to save the data on a DVD, but not necessarily one which could be
played directly. He's just using it as a storage medium.

Why not just save it on a big hard drive instead, then do the editing thing from
there?

--
Chris Pollard


CG Internet café, Tagum City, Philippines
http://www.cginternet.net

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

In article <113kr4j95en5078@corp.supernews.com>,
"Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> writes:
>
> "John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
> news1dqcu$2gka$1@news.iquest.net...
>> In article <113knkahghg3qec@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> writes:
>>>
>>> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:39um6aF5f9jj9U1@individual.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:113k515dk1qoo35@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "MrTobor" <tobor8man@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1111101564.390811.167540@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>I have tons of old 8mm tapes that I'd like to bring into the digital
>>>>>> age (specifically to DVD). What I'd like to do is transfer all my raw
>>>>>> footage to DVD (or CD) at the maximum quality level with no
>>>>>> editing--just straight transfer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Buy a stand alone recorder...Pioneer or Panasonic.
>>>>
>>>> Do NOT buy a stand alone recorder.
>>>>
>>>> The OP wants to archive analog video that will later be edited.
>>>
>>> He wants DVD. DVD. Brain dead?
>>>
>> He did say that he wanted to capture to DVD, subsequently edit
>> and then produce a final DVD. Actually, it isn't a really good
>> idea to do two concatenated (term of art, means multiple compression
>> decompression) of low rate MPEG2 -- DVD is a little too limited
>> at about 8-9mbps for the highest quality.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>He wants the video at highest quality.
>>>
>>> DV 25 mbit second is highest?
>>>
>> DV 25mbit with good quality (current) encoders is damned good -- but
>> not quite as good as the nearly transparent DV50 or DigiBeta. Claiming
>> that DVD is 'highest quality' would be utilizing alot more poetic
>> license than claiming that DV25 is 'highest' quality.
>>
>> One big quality issue is that neither DV25 nor MPEG2 like to see much
>> noise
>> in the video, but DV25 with current generation encoders can deal with
>> more random content. It would make sense to use a super high quality
>> DV25 encoder (e.g. Canopus ADVC300), and then subsequently use a
>> non-realtime
>> (non-causal filtering) MPEG2 encoder with lots of noise reduction. You
>> can get the benefits of noise reduction with almost NO artifacting and
>> no quality loss relative to consumer tape formats. Almost as good as
>> using
>> 'best quality' DV25 encoding, using almost unlimited MPEG2 bandwidth (e.g.
>> 15mbps or faster) can be useful to allow the MPEG2 encoder to deal better
>> with totally random input (noise in consumer video.)
>>
>> * When recording noisy video onto MPEG2, if there isn't a heap of
>> noise reduction, there is much less advantage to the inter-frame
>> compression. It is still more effective than DV25, but also more
>> artifact prone than just to ignore inter-frame information and just
>> use DV25 compression. (AFAIR, DV25 still tries to take advantage of
>> intra-frame similarity by optionally taking advantage of the similarity
>> of two fields, but the payload capability of DV25 allows for more
>> noise data.) When ignoring the noise in DCT domain compression, there
>> is some artifacting that makes it sometimes look worse than other
>> kinds of information limiting.
>>
>>
>> Perhaps the biggest theoretical loss of quality when mastering DV25 onto
>> MPEG2 is the mismatch of the 4:1:1 to 4:2:0 color sampling. This is
>> almost
>> a non-issue given composite or color-under (consumer analog) video
>> sources.
>>
>> Basically, using DV25 before MPEG2 does limit the chroma response from
>> 3+MHz to 1.4-1.5MHz... This is significantly greater chroma than what
>> can be supplied by Hi8, 8mm, BetaMax, SuperBeta, EDBeta, SVHS, laser disk,
>> OTA video, CED Video or any other common consumer video source. Consumer
>> video sources tend to be limited to approx 500kHz (or less) of color
>> data per component, except LD which can theoretically approach 1.2-1.5MHz
>> in both components, if some rules are bent. Otherwise, the chroma
>> bandwidth would tend to be limited to approx 1.2MHz and (afair 0.5MHz?)
>> (Using widerband LD chroma might introduce some artifacting on decoders
>> that aren't prepared to handle it.)
>>
>> It is true that the realtime MPEG2 encoders (used in set-top DVD
>> recorders)_
>> can be pretty good, but to get the maximum, noise free quality, it can
>> be better to use offline (often very slow) noise reduction. This slowness
>> can gain significant quality because of the potential for non-causal
>> filtering. (Offline noise reduction can look forwards and backwards in
>> time, while real time processing TENDS to be more limited.)
>>
>> It isn't WRONG to use a set-top DVD recorder, and if one is used, then
>> just max-out the quality settings, and be careful about comet-tailing
>> (or other motion artifacts) when enabling the (very much needed)
>> online, real-time video noise reduction for MPEG2 encoding of noisy
>> consumer video.
>>
>> John
>
> I do not disagree. But this individual is not going to research all of the
> data, spend months of testing Codecs, etc. The set top boxes have various
> forms of noise reduction geared for NTSC. Many of these are equal to very
> expensive proprietary approaches. I presumed these variables in my
> statement.
>
I have seen some examples of motion artifacting when using real time noise
reduction before MPEG2 compression... This is one reason why I tend to resist
that scheme. It seems like alot of people are tolerant of noise reduction
artifacts that I am not tolerant of. When I made my suggestion, I was
trying to make sure that the 'master' copies have the least damage possible.
If a practical master is made to 'DVD', then the noise reduction artifacts
(LARGE amounts of noise reduction are often very necessary for MPEG2 encoding)
will be imprinted on the signal forever.

If this wasn't essentially a 'master' copy, then noise reduction artifacts
onto a distribution copy is of less consequence.

Indeed, if the original poster is interested in a 'quick' solution, then
a set-top DVD recorder will necessarily be the best (but non-optimal
quality) solution. On the other hand, using a compression scheme that
can withstand some video noise (definitely not MPEG2), and with reasonably
limited real-time video noise reduction (e.g. the ADVC300) and timebase
correction, then the slightly imperfect, but minimally damaged master
images can be DV25 format. (Of course, a practical set top DVD recorder has
to have lots of noise reduction and some kind of tolerance of time
base errors, not claiming that a set top DVD recorder is necessarily
lacking features.) One could take the suggestion to an extreme, and
master onto DV50 or DigiBeta, where the master would be minimally
damaged. In fact, that is EXACTLY what I do before mastering onto DV25...

With a minimally damaged DV25 recording, then subsequent non-realtime
noise reduction can produce a nearly artifact free MPEG2 video, probably
significantly better than the MPEG2 master that is produced by the
set-top box. The 'sad' thing is that the damaged MPEG2 master with
a set top box will likely be used (after some editing/processing) to
produce an even more damaged MPEG2 copy. If minimal processing/changes
are made to the master copy while recording onto the distribution
master, then it is possible that the additional artifacts due to recompression
will be limited (hopefully.)

How much damage is the user willing to accept? This depends upon his/her
tolerance to spending time on finding/developing and implementing
a solution to the problem along with simple tolerance to video defects.
Truly, it isn't necessary that video always be perfect.

It is possible that the 'probable' lower quality option of multiple MPEG2
encode/decode cycles will be MORE DESIREABLE than the 'probable' higher
quality option of using reasonably well encoded DV25, and then production
of an MPEG2 product. It is definitely easier to use a set top DVD recorder,
and the results just might be adequate for the user!

In my own case, I cannot stand the motion artifacts that I have seen with
noise reduction before MPEG2 encoding, but on the other hand, my current
setup doesn't produce visible artifacts... (Interestingly, IMO, I can
take a moderate quality LD -- e.g. Cars Heartbeat City, with significant
chroma noise, and produce a DVD that ALMOST looks like NTSC never touched
it, and solid chroma... It looks like a slightly limited bandwidth DVD,
with no significant NTSC footprint or large area chroma noise!!! Most
importantly, no visible comet tailing or odd motion stuttering/smear
artifacting.) Likewise, such feats of magic can be done with original
tape formats also -- except with significantly greater bandwith limits
for 8mm, VHS or Beta/SuperBeta.

John

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

In article <vgsk31p6dsfon7p1rkan91vjt8gl4dno8l@4ax.com>,
Christopher Pollard <rubbish@cginternet.net> writes:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:52:24 -0800, "Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote:
>
>> What I'd like to do is transfer all my raw
>>>>> footage to DVD (or CD) at the maximum quality level with no
>>>>> editing--just straight transfer.
>>>>
>>>> Buy a stand alone recorder...Pioneer or Panasonic.
>>>
>>> Do NOT buy a stand alone recorder.
>>>
>>> The OP wants to archive analog video that will later be edited.
>>
>>He wants DVD. DVD. Brain dead?
>
> AIUI, he wants to save the data on a DVD, but not necessarily one which could be
> played directly. He's just using it as a storage medium.
>
> Why not just save it on a big hard drive instead, then do the editing thing from
> there?
>
Given the large size of hard drives nowadays, that is one reason why DV25
would potentially be superior. The DV25 copy could actually be stored
on a few DVDs, but in relatively less compressed form (and not playable
on DVD player, but usable on PC.)

I actually don't always use my DV25 deck while playing out from the minimally
noise reduced DV50, but record directly using the ADVC300 onto hard disk.

The ADVC300 plus a PC almost equals a fixed media DV deck. In my
case, the DV deck is mostly used to create backups, which could nowadays
instead be multiple DVD-Rs or DVD-RWs.

John

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

"MrTobor" <tobor8man@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I have tons of old 8mm tapes that I'd like to bring into the digital
>age (specifically to DVD). What I'd like to do is transfer all my raw
>footage to DVD (or CD) at the maximum quality level with no
>editing--just straight transfer.
>
>Then, I'd like use those DVDs or CDs as "masters" to begin the long
>process of editing into themed, authored DVDs.
>
>I have a Mini DV camcorder but it does not have A/D passthrough
>conversion capability so I will need a video capture device. Also, I
>have not yet purchased a DVD burner.
>
>I'd like some recommendations please. I've got my eye on some of the
>Pinnacle Studio products for capture. Anyone have any experience with
>them?
>
>Also, I want maximum DVD player compatibility (i.e., play anywhere)
>with regard to final DVD creation. Any software/hardware
>recommendations would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Hi,

Since you have 8mm which you want to eventually put on DVDs, you have
several basic options. NOTE, I would not even think about using CDs.

You could spend a lot of time and effort to capture the 8mm through a
DV converter (DV or D8 camcorder, box or card) to your computer,
transcode to MPG2 and burn to DVD.

You could convert direct to MPG2 on your computer and burn, or

You could use a stand alone DVD recorder.

Since pristine 8mm at SP is limited to about 240 lines of resolution
with lousy color, I would forget about DV and either capture in MPG2
or use a stand alone DVD recorder. However, if you plan to upgrade to
DV anyway, then you could go that route since you'll need the
capability later.

The most important thing when using 8mm or VHS is to maintain the very
best analog signal possible before you digitize. I would make sure
the player is the best you can beg or borrow, that the heads and tapes
are clean, and that you run the analog signal through a time base
corrector and proc amp (to adjust the saturation, hue, contrast,
brightness and sharpness, etc.) BEFORE you digitize. Remember, the
image will never be better than what you capture. Garbage in, garbage
out. All the post processing in the world will never make up for a
lack of care before capturing. The number one cause of lousy picture
quality, OOS and dropped frames with 8mm and VHS is a bad analog
signal.

If you go the MPG2 route, I would definitely not put more than two
hours of video on a DVD if you want to do any editing. It would be
best to limit yourself to one hour of video to a DVD.

A major limitation with MPG2 is repeated and often unintended
recoding. What you want to do is settle on a bitrate and image size
that you use to do all of your capturing, editing and burning, so you
don't end up recoding your video several times.

Finally, (with 8mm video) as long as you stay above 4000 Kbps you are
probably safe using CBR. Certainly, at 6000 or above there is
absolutely no need for VBR.

No "home' burned DVD will play on all set-top DVD players. However,
any newer software/hardware package should be able to burn a DVD-R
disk that will play on most recent players. Some older players and
some combination VHS/DVD players do have problems with almost all
non-commercial DVDs. In that case, only a new DVD player will solve
the problem. On the other hand, some players will play anything you
throw at them. You just have to try and see.

Hope this helps,

Susan

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

"Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
news:113knkahghg3qec@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:39um6aF5f9jj9U1@individual.net...
>>
>> "Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
>> news:113k515dk1qoo35@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>> "MrTobor" <tobor8man@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1111101564.390811.167540@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>>>I have tons of old 8mm tapes that I'd like to bring into the digital
>>>> age (specifically to DVD). What I'd like to do is transfer all my raw
>>>> footage to DVD (or CD) at the maximum quality level with no
>>>> editing--just straight transfer.
>>>
>>> Buy a stand alone recorder...Pioneer or Panasonic.
>>
>> Do NOT buy a stand alone recorder.
>>
>> The OP wants to archive analog video that will later be edited.
>
> He wants DVD. DVD. Brain dead?

No, I can read. Evidently you can't. Here's what the OP said:

"I have tons of old 8mm tapes that I'd like to bring into the digital age
(specifically to DVD). What I'd like to do is transfer all my raw footage to
DVD (or CD) at the maximum quality level with no editing--just straight
transfer.

Then, I'd like use those DVDs or CDs as "masters" to begin the long process
of editing into themed, authored DVDs."

Let's parse it out -- he'd like to ARCHIVE video to DVD. Then he'd like to
use the DVD as a MASTER so that he can EDIT them into AUTHORED DVDs.

1. Archive video to DVD.
2. Edit the video on the DVD.
3. Create an authored DVD after editing.

Now, here's what I wrote:

Standalone recorders transcode analog video to mpeg. Now, maybe you don't
know this, but the compression scheme used by mpeg uses a master frame
followed by a number of other frames in which only the differences from the
master frame are recorded. This makes doing anything but non-frame-accurate
cuts editing extremely difficult, because all intermediate frames must be
derived from the master frame and any transitions, corrections or effects
require that the whole sequence be re-rendered. This results in degraded
video, which is why no one interested in standard-definition video quality
edits in mpeg.

Of course, we're not done yet. In order to do what you propose, for the OP
to edit, he will need to convert the VOB files on the DVD to mpeg (not too
big a deal) if he's going to try to edit in the format (which, as I've
explained, is a very poor approach), or, he will need to convert the VOB
files to a format which does not use intermediate, calculated frames, e.g.
dv-encoded avi, which all good editing programs will accept. Of course, in
doing so, he introduces an additional, 2nd transcoding step. And, finally,
once he has edited his video, he will need to re-transcode back to mpeg, for
a third transcoding step. At each transcoding step, he will lose video
quality.

Now do you understand?


>
>
>>He wants the video at highest quality.
>
> DV 25 mbit second is highest?

DV-25 would probably be fine for his purposes. How much disk space do you
think he has?

Oh, and one other question:

Why is the ignorance and arrogance always seem to go hand-in-hand?

>
>
>>Stand alone recorders transcode video to mpeg and burn video DVDs. This
>>entails significant compresion, which lowers video quality, and results in
>>a format that can only be edited with great difficulty and subsequent
>>quality loss.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then, I'd like use those DVDs or CDs as "masters" to begin the long
>>>> process of editing into themed, authored DVDs.
>>>
>>> You can edit later in DVD Author.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have a Mini DV camcorder but it does not have A/D passthrough
>>>> conversion capability so I will need a video capture device. Also, I
>>>> have not yet purchased a DVD burner.
>>>>
>>>> I'd like some recommendations please. I've got my eye on some of the
>>>> Pinnacle Studio products for capture. Anyone have any experience with
>>>> them?
>>>>
>>>> Also, I want maximum DVD player compatibility (i.e., play anywhere)
>>>> with regard to final DVD creation. Any software/hardware
>>>> recommendations would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>