Is MiniDV on the way out?
- Thread starter Takumi
- Start date
- Status
tchoonyong
New Member
true. dv or avi is still not 100% raw if you are thinking of capturing raw you may need a very big hdd space to do that. I believe so far only Final cut pro and avid video editing software really accepted true raw formats as they are the only industry leading application. Forget about other softwares they will reconvert during their capturing period.
jaegersing
Deregistered
Actually AVI can be almost anything, including uncompressed (but I don't think there is such a thing as RAW format in video). AVI is just a wrapper that windows uses for video files and can cover many codecs such as DV, MPEG4, DIVX, XVID, Indeo etc. Uncompressed does not have a codec (by definition) but AVI can still be used to hold uncompressed video.
If you can get the uncompressed files into your PC, most NLE software will be able to edit it, although your hard disk will need to be super fast if you want smooth playback, especially with high definition frame sizes.
If you have to CAPTURE the uncompressed video, you will need a suitable hardware interface to do so. For example, if you are shooting video with a Canon XL-H1 which has an SDI output, you could get an SDI interface for your PC that would allow you to capture the uncompressed video, assuming your hard disk system was fast enough.
For consumer videocams, there is really no way to get an uncompressed video signal, so for the vast majority of people with limited funds (AKA me!
), the DV or HDV output will have to be good enough.tchoonyong
New Member
Actually AVI can be almost anything, including uncompressed (but I don't think there is such a thing as RAW format in video). AVI is just a wrapper that windows uses for video files and can cover many codecs such as DV, MPEG4, DIVX, XVID, Indeo etc. Uncompressed does not have a codec (by definition) but AVI can still be used to hold uncompressed video.
If you can get the uncompressed files into your PC, most NLE software will be able to edit it, although your hard disk will need to be super fast if you want smooth playback, especially with high definition frame sizes.
If you have to CAPTURE the uncompressed video, you will need a suitable hardware interface to do so. For example, if you are shooting video with a Canon XL-H1 which has an SDI output, you could get an SDI interface for your PC that would allow you to capture the uncompressed video, assuming your hard disk system was fast enough.
For consumer videocams, there is really no way to get an uncompressed video signal, so for the vast majority of people with limited funds (AKA me!
thks for your detail infor. But i believe for hdv tapes the max they had is 1080i which is not even to true hd which is 1080p even thou there are formats for 1080p so the issues are high definition are not fully ready yet. so no hurry to switch to hd. Plus the issues of operating systems supporting these platforms and even softwares even though apple leads in supporting high definition as well as sony they are still havin issues of multiple high definiton formats and which to be standardise. MPEG 4 or MPEG 2 for the next codec in creating either HD DVD Videos/Bluray Videos. So far you can create HD Videos using either format they will accept it. As time goes by i believe AVCHD Will be the leading format as people are slowly thinking of using tapeless format in the form of HDD instead of DVD or tapes which needs a medium to play. And also cannot play as much footage as possible like HDD. Editing wise tapes will still be around for sometimes before software developers will find a way to support dvd editing as a replacement for tapes.
Thanks for all the info... very useful... I think the issues with my videos is that we just switch on the camera and take videos in the day... and the other being that the video is being captured and severely compressed when transferred to the computer due to space issues... would it might be better to capture small segments with as little compression then join?
As for AVI, in the early days, I thought it a method of making a video by streaming thousands of still pictures in a squence... that made the video really uncompressed since the resolution of each frame was completely preserved and that meant of course the file size was very huge!
As for AVI, in the early days, I thought it a method of making a video by streaming thousands of still pictures in a squence... that made the video really uncompressed since the resolution of each frame was completely preserved and that meant of course the file size was very huge!
jaegersing
Deregistered
If you are short of disk space, the best solution is to buy a new hard disk. They are very cheap nowadays. If this is not possible, you should use a capture program that supports batch capture, whereby you scan through the tape and select all the parts you want to capture, then capture them via firewire at the original DV quality. This will give you much better results than capturing with additional compression.
I wouldn't have thought so. AVI just means Audio Video Interleaved and by itself doesn't tell you anything about the video format. There are fields in the file that windows has to look at so it knows what codec to use for decompression. Streaming still pictures is also used, even nowadays, especially when you want to keep transparency information, but it is common to use TGA files for this rather than AVI. If you use Quicktime there is more flexibility, because it supports alpha channel with compressed video whereas AVI does not.
jaegersing
Deregistered
I think Adobe and Sony Vegas7 is already supporting AVCHD format. I don't think it is a problem to do editing although i myself have no handson experience. Sony already has 1080p LCD Tv but i am not sure if it is 1080/50p.
Question for TME, is your recording good when playback to the TV directly from the camcorder? if yes, then it must be your compressiion method/format used in the PC. If not, then it must be the camcorder or the setting used for the recording.
Question for TME, is your recording good when playback to the TV directly from the camcorder? if yes, then it must be your compressiion method/format used in the PC. If not, then it must be the camcorder or the setting used for the recording.
this is one of the most interesting and rewarding thread in CS for the longest of time... we are really talking about technology, education everybody... (Hope this dun trigger flames 
)
anyway, its true that AVC-HD is supported on Vegas 7 and it will be supported by later versions of Vegas and Moviestudio, this will make editing a breeze...
the fact is that HD ready (1366x768) is more affordable and smaller for most homes... Full HD (1980x1080) are generally too ex and minimum inch size is 40"
HD is definately the future, just that you are the fore-runners to answer to all this questions...
)anyway, its true that AVC-HD is supported on Vegas 7 and it will be supported by later versions of Vegas and Moviestudio, this will make editing a breeze...
the fact is that HD ready (1366x768) is more affordable and smaller for most homes... Full HD (1980x1080) are generally too ex and minimum inch size is 40"
HD is definately the future, just that you are the fore-runners to answer to all this questions...
jaegersing
Deregistered
Yes Adobe and Vegas and Edius support AVCHD editing. But I wouldn't call it a breeze, more like the thick air that hands around the satay sellers at East Coast Park on a hot Sunday. It will take a couple of years (my estimate only) before the software and hardware improves enough to make the AVCHD editing experience tolerable.
Regarding the HD Ready displays, yes I understand and agree with what you say. The thing many people don't realise though, is that when you pump in a 1080i signal, some of these panels deinterlace by throwing away alternate fields, i.e. half of the vertical resolution, so you get only 540p that is then scaled up to 720 or 768. HD Ready? Well sort of. :thumbsd:
Regarding the HD Ready displays, yes I understand and agree with what you say. The thing many people don't realise though, is that when you pump in a 1080i signal, some of these panels deinterlace by throwing away alternate fields, i.e. half of the vertical resolution, so you get only 540p that is then scaled up to 720 or 768. HD Ready? Well sort of. :thumbsd:
Well what to do? It's a lot of marketing hype... I did question the salesperson at Carrefour when I bought my 42" plasma one year back (it's only 852x480 or something like that) and asked how is it HD ready - he went into long discourse about digital and whatever... I thought he was just bluffing... anyway at that point in time, there were not TVs of a sane price that could even support 1080i natively...
Hi, I actually never tried playing the DV tape back on TV directly from the recorder... haha... cos the recorder belongs to the school... I will need the proprietary cable... should really try next time... thanks for the tip!
Personally I have been using a Sony HDD camera recently and;
I find that it's not suitable for my uses.
1) It captures to mpeg which I can't edit in Windows Movie Maker
2) It assumes that I have a DVD burner and drive (hello! I like to burn CDs ok? Why must Sony dictate what I want to use?)
3) MPEG files are too huge, I have to re-encode, oddly re-encoding wastes even more time than capturing from tape
4) Oddly, it hangs my Premiere - guess what it worked on? Vegas!
Utterly disgusted with HDD cameras...
1) Can't edit easily and cheaply
2) can't burn to CD easily
They are not for me. Tape is still better for now.
I find that it's not suitable for my uses.
1) It captures to mpeg which I can't edit in Windows Movie Maker
2) It assumes that I have a DVD burner and drive (hello! I like to burn CDs ok? Why must Sony dictate what I want to use?)
3) MPEG files are too huge, I have to re-encode, oddly re-encoding wastes even more time than capturing from tape
4) Oddly, it hangs my Premiere - guess what it worked on? Vegas!
Utterly disgusted with HDD cameras...
1) Can't edit easily and cheaply
2) can't burn to CD easily
They are not for me. Tape is still better for now.
tchoonyong
New Member
Recently Apple Final cut pro also supports AVCHD but only for intel mac and not powerpc processor due to the diff in speed i think apple do the right thing to support only the newest processor to acess AVCHD. AVCHD i think will be more relevant to used on newer processor as compared to old processor due to their abilities to process higher bitrates.
jaegersing
Deregistered
Yep, a powerful processor is definitely recommended, not so much for the high bit rates (AVCHD is highly compressed so the bit rates are lower) as for the decompression task which is very complex.
It supports AVCHD by offering an option to ingest and transcode to ProRes or AIC. It does not edit in AVCHD natively.
tchoonyong
New Member
Becoz basically if you edits natively in AVCHD you will still faced lagging as what vegas is having when it is been doned in editing by transcoding to a more user friendly editing format it is more easily and faster to edit. i believe after AVCHD Codec is stabilised than final cut pro may supports it as a native support. For imovie i think in the next imovie updates they may come with supports for AVCHD as demands are quite high when you reads some of the forum articles at apple official website. Most apple updates are basically getting those feedbacks from the forum itself.
AVCHD is already there. I think the rest of the NLE have to catch up. There may be technological hurdles to why Final Cut Pro cannot edit in AVCHD natively but you're right that it could be resolved further down the line. No one's going to change the codec now as it has already been deployed. However, the current workflow in Final Cut Pro of ingesting and transcoding AVCHD basically negates the advantages of shooting to non linear media.
- Status
Similar threads
