can increase chances during vidtaping? at DVinfo.net

Joe Angelitis · September 26th, 2002, 08:38 PM

WHen the final video product is a .avi file or a compressed .mpg file, does anyone know a way to "overcompensate" during the videotaping process so that less "clean up" is required during post production, particularly with the audio ( ? ) For example, I get the audio sounding good on my headphones on site during the shoot (using Canon XL1-S), it sounds good afterward when played through a TV monitor, but then the computer files of course degrade the sound. Besides using editing tricks in post production, is there any equipment out there (mixers? the audio monitor on the camera?) that can be used to increase the chances that the computer file versions will be better? Or is the degrading during conversion from tape to computer file just the unfortunate state of the art at this point in history?

Joe Angelitis · September 26th, 2002, 08:50 PM

I believe what I'm asking above is this: Other than fixing it afterward, and other than getting it to look good to my eye and sound good in my headphones, what else can I do / use to monitor the quality during the shoot that will have some influence on the final computer files?

I guess this question should be in another thread category. Sorry about that!

Josh Bass · September 26th, 2002, 11:52 PM

I'm sorry. . .I don't understand. I thought the entire point of digital everything was near-perfect preservation of quality when transferring data and the like. Copy a jpeg from one disk to another, it's still the same jpeg. Doesn't this apply to sound and video as well, as long as you don't compress the signal (I suppose if the editing software you're using does it for you, that can't be helped).

Isn't there somewhere in your program's preferences to keep it from degrading your original audio?

Maybe I'm just really naive.

Joe Angelitis · September 27th, 2002, 06:55 AM

Josh,

My knowledge in this is like Swiss Cheese--lot's of holes in it. The discussion is good, at least it is for me. You are right in theory about the benefits of digital: Because it's a binary code, a jpeg or mpg is not subject to the same "wear and tear" or degrading as stuff on tape. The way I comprehend it, computer files get read by the computer and "re-assembled" so to speak each time they're opened up. However, from my experience, the computer files are somewhat at the mercy of the equipment. I've made nice mpeg files that play fine on my laptop, but are all dark and crappy on somebody else's laptop, regardless of what we tried to do to the laptop's settings ( ? )

I've been somewhat lucky for about a year because I've been creating .mpg videos for educational purposes at a University and the information/content was the important part, not the video or audio quality. Now that I'm trying to improve the quality of the videos, I'm getting a bit frustrated. Playing one of my miniDV tapes on my TV, my footage looks fantastic and sounds pretty decent, but as soon as I convert to .avi or compress to .mpg, the sound and visual gets worse. I'm too new to this yet to understand if it's just the computer can't play it as well as the TV monitor, or it's being compromised during the conversion to a computer file, and if that second part is because I'm using relatively simple editing software (Sony DVGate on a Sony Vaio---Hey, don't laugh at my Sony DVGate out there--it's kept me employed for over a year!)

Joe Angel

Josh Bass · September 27th, 2002, 04:04 PM

In theory, if you don't render anything (use effects, titles, whatnot) and just transfer the data back and forth it should stay intact. Compression of course will degrade the quality. Is there no way to avoid compression of any kind, video or audio?

Don Donatello · September 27th, 2002, 08:10 PM

you mentioned DV gate .. do you know what version DIRECT X is on your computer ? directX v6 and v7 has a TERRIBLE microsoft dv codec ... directX 8 is better but IMO still the worse out there.

i think dv gate uses the microsoft dv codec ..therefore anything that needed to be rendered will pick up artifacts using that codec... even if you wanted too mpeg the clip it would use the msDV codec to un-compress the dv file then use a mpeg codec to make the file a mpeg ...

September 26th, 2002, 08:38 PM	#1
Joe Angelitis New Boot Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Bath, PA, USA Posts: 6	can increase chances during vidtaping? WHen the final video product is a .avi file or a compressed .mpg file, does anyone know a way to "overcompensate" during the videotaping process so that less "clean up" is required during post production, particularly with the audio ( ? ) For example, I get the audio sounding good on my headphones on site during the shoot (using Canon XL1-S), it sounds good afterward when played through a TV monitor, but then the computer files of course degrade the sound. Besides using editing tricks in post production, is there any equipment out there (mixers? the audio monitor on the camera?) that can be used to increase the chances that the computer file versions will be better? Or is the degrading during conversion from tape to computer file just the unfortunate state of the art at this point in history?

September 26th, 2002, 11:52 PM	#3
Josh Bass Slash Rules! Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 5,472	I'm sorry. . .I don't understand. I thought the entire point of digital everything was near-perfect preservation of quality when transferring data and the like. Copy a jpeg from one disk to another, it's still the same jpeg. Doesn't this apply to sound and video as well, as long as you don't compress the signal (I suppose if the editing software you're using does it for you, that can't be helped). Isn't there somewhere in your program's preferences to keep it from degrading your original audio? Maybe I'm just really naive. __________________ The Bass' camerawork The Bass on IMDB

September 27th, 2002, 04:04 PM	#5
Josh Bass Slash Rules! Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 5,472	In theory, if you don't render anything (use effects, titles, whatnot) and just transfer the data back and forth it should stay intact. Compression of course will degrade the quality. Is there no way to avoid compression of any kind, video or audio? __________________ The Bass' camerawork The Bass on IMDB

September 26th, 2002, 08:50 PM	#2
Joe Angelitis New Boot Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Bath, PA, USA Posts: 6	I believe what I'm asking above is this: Other than fixing it afterward, and other than getting it to look good to my eye and sound good in my headphones, what else can I do / use to monitor the quality during the shoot that will have some influence on the final computer files? I guess this question should be in another thread category. Sorry about that!

September 27th, 2002, 06:55 AM	#4
Joe Angelitis New Boot Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Bath, PA, USA Posts: 6	Josh, My knowledge in this is like Swiss Cheese--lot's of holes in it. The discussion is good, at least it is for me. You are right in theory about the benefits of digital: Because it's a binary code, a jpeg or mpg is not subject to the same "wear and tear" or degrading as stuff on tape. The way I comprehend it, computer files get read by the computer and "re-assembled" so to speak each time they're opened up. However, from my experience, the computer files are somewhat at the mercy of the equipment. I've made nice mpeg files that play fine on my laptop, but are all dark and crappy on somebody else's laptop, regardless of what we tried to do to the laptop's settings ( ? ) I've been somewhat lucky for about a year because I've been creating .mpg videos for educational purposes at a University and the information/content was the important part, not the video or audio quality. Now that I'm trying to improve the quality of the videos, I'm getting a bit frustrated. Playing one of my miniDV tapes on my TV, my footage looks fantastic and sounds pretty decent, but as soon as I convert to .avi or compress to .mpg, the sound and visual gets worse. I'm too new to this yet to understand if it's just the computer can't play it as well as the TV monitor, or it's being compromised during the conversion to a computer file, and if that second part is because I'm using relatively simple editing software (Sony DVGate on a Sony Vaio---Hey, don't laugh at my Sony DVGate out there--it's kept me employed for over a year!) Joe Angel

September 27th, 2002, 08:10 PM	#6
Don Donatello Hawaiian Shirt Mogul Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: northern cailfornia Posts: 1,261	you mentioned DV gate .. do you know what version DIRECT X is on your computer ? directX v6 and v7 has a TERRIBLE microsoft dv codec ... directX 8 is better but IMO still the worse out there. i think dv gate uses the microsoft dv codec ..therefore anything that needed to be rendered will pick up artifacts using that codec... even if you wanted too mpeg the clip it would use the msDV codec to un-compress the dv file then use a mpeg codec to make the file a mpeg ...