Lossless Viewing

Adrian Douglas · November 5th, 2002, 10:56 PM

Dennis,

Going from DV "Tape" to component is a waste of time and a lot of money. For the best view from tape either go through firewire to your computer monitor(this requires you to deinterlace the footage) or just use the s-video output of your camera.

As the 4:1:1 component signal from the CCD is compressed 5-1 in-camera before it goes to tape you will have that compression no matter what you connect your camera up to.

As I said in your other similar post, unless you are doing all this for colour correction or testing broadcast safe colours it is all a waste of time and money. The s-video out it the simplest and cheapest way to get nice looking "uncompressed" video out of your camera for general viewing.

Andre De Clercq · November 6th, 2002, 04:37 AM

Dennis, I don't think DSR11 has component output.
Adrian, do you know of a good deinterlacer/rescaler for computer viewing, I would be very interested...
Y/C is indeed cheap and acceptable for general viewing. If you want "better", than you need component. Agree that the DV decompressors and NTSC encoders in camcorders are not bad these days (there are however differences in the encoder part and they all include the NTSC standard limits)) but that's not the only part in the chain. The (NTSC) decoder in yr TV is even more involved. These decoders, because they need to process also weak and noisy aerial signals, use bandwidth limited chroma channels resulting in color leakage and compromised Y/C delay shifts. Quite often, neither the chroma decoder input filters, nor the subcarrier rejector trap in the luma channel are not disabled in Y/C input mode..The differences between Y/C and component in PAL and DVD (both 4:2:0 based) are even more pronounced.

Joe Carney · November 6th, 2002, 10:24 AM

The Canopus ADVC-100 has gotten great reviews. It's DV to Analog and vice versa, goes for about $300.00, but net/street prices are better. Analog out is composite or svideo. Have heard only good things about it.

Heres a link to the company site

http://www.canopus.com/US/products/advc-100/pm_advc-100.asp

Douglas Spotted Eagle used it during his VAST tour, had it hooked up from a 1394 port on a loptop to a television using Vegas Video. The picture looked great.

Andre De Clercq · November 6th, 2002, 10:48 AM

ADVC100 is OK but no components out. Some camcorders have "pass-through" (1394 in > Y/C out)

Dennis Hull · November 6th, 2002, 09:01 PM

So, today I read on the Datavideo website--- "DV camcorders have S VHS sockets capable of high quality output." Thereby I think dashing hopes that "magic gadget" DAC 2 would vastly improve on conversion circuitry in camcorder and give vastly better S VHS output to TV and vastly better picture. Remember, I am new at all this so it seemed likely I was missing out on some great and inexpensive piece of equipment that would improve viewing my camcorder output on TV. It had seemed logical that camcorders would use inexpensive DAC's thereby giving low quality S VHS signal and hence sub-optimal picture when I plugged it into S VHS input on TV. Anyhow, thanks for everyone's patience and helpful input as you gently steer me in right direction (just shoot) and educate me. By the way jojo, I just printed out eight pages from Canopus which starts out saying they use "a proprietary Native to DV YUV color space" and "...Native to DV as all DV is YUV." Just wait till I finish reading that!!! Just kidding.

Andre De Clercq · November 7th, 2002, 03:51 AM

Dennis, the DAC-2 hasn't a better Y/C output than yr cam has. The "value" of the DAC-2 is it's component outputs (YUV)which is of course only relevant if yr TV has component inputs.

Zac Stein · November 7th, 2002, 04:56 AM

Sorry for my french, but this YUV discussion that it will make your footage look any better is a complete wank.

YUV at best provides a %10 better percieved picture, and that is purely subjective if you prefer a softer more vibrant picture vs a sharper more defined picture.

Stop wasting your time about it.

And another thing about the s-video worries, you think a company like sony or canon or whoever they oem their boards from is going to go to the trouble of making one better decoder over another, it is alot cheaper for them to produce one of good quality and produce it in high mass, hence better yields and less overheads.

People here are getting it wrong all over the place, the dv footage onto your tape is already compressed, but it is still purely digital, it only becomes analog when passed through the dac. That is the only time!!!!

Yes taking from your camera's s-video rather than your tv out on your vid card will look 100x better, that is because the s-video from your vid card is interpreted junk, not a real s-video signal, it is taken from rgb then interlaced then stuffed through a crummy codec and forced down a REAL cheap pathway. The only reason they put s-video on it, rather than composite is because the signal would look that bad in composite people would start complaining, and it is easy to put 1 plug and a composite adapter vs 2 plugs.

kermie

Josh Bass · November 7th, 2002, 05:02 AM

What does this mean for a fellow like me who has a simple VCR from the late 90s? I still say it's probably worth the 8 bucks to go to a transfer house.

Zac Stein · November 7th, 2002, 05:21 AM

Josh,

I really like the idea of burning s-vcd's for use in a dvd player.

They are better quality than a vhs tape, cost less to produce, and never wear out.

A liteon 48x burner (awesome brand and burner) is around $50 and blank cd-r's are like 0.20c each! and you are getting better quality than a VHS, it is a win win situation, plus you don't need any transfer house to drive to and spend time at.

kermie

Andre De Clercq · November 7th, 2002, 07:59 AM

Kermie, why would you think YUV has been "invented" and used by broadcasters all over the world? For the %10 better image? Did you ever see Y/C compaired to YUV ?

Zac Stein · November 7th, 2002, 08:03 AM

Dre, it allows you to do critical colour correction more easily and basicly represents a standard that is easy to get quickly from source tapes.

But for the home user it is almost usless, as we colour correct almost always in rgb on our computer screen.

And yes i see YUV compared to y/c a lot, infact i had to do many comparisons with many different tv's when i was reviewing dvd's and dvd players.

kermie

Jeff Donald · November 7th, 2002, 08:58 AM

I see more than 10% improvement between S-Video and component (at least to my eye). I see much less noise in component video. The noise becomes very apparent on bigger screens. If you have access to a component source (DVD, Betacam SP, etc.) feed the signal into a broadcast monitor and turn on the Blue Gun (blue only). Repeat with S-Video and composite video. The noise levels (and differences) will amaze you. This applies to NTSC video. My experience with PAL video is limited.

Jeff

Andre De Clercq · November 7th, 2002, 09:58 AM

Kermie, I agree with Jeff. Maybe you need to compare on a somewhat "better" TV or projector. I suppose you live in a PAL land (like I do) and the differences are even more pronounced there. Do you know that PAL decoders reduce the vertical chroma resolution to 50% as compared to the original U/V values ? Do you know that Pal DL decoding gives an additional vertical chroma downshift of more than 1 line? Do you know that horizontal chroma resolution of a directly converted Pal DV or DVD (4:2:0) signal is twice the normal PAL chroma resolution?

Josh Bass · November 7th, 2002, 12:58 PM

Well what would you folks recommend for sending out to film festivals and the like? I was planning on making VHS copies, but CDs would be nicer.

Andre De Clercq · November 7th, 2002, 01:19 PM

VHS, even SVHS are clearely inferior to DV and (good) DVD copies.
So, if you can send "cd" use DVD. The best solution (if the native footage is DV), is still DV tape played back through YUV.

November 5th, 2002, 10:56 PM	#16
Adrian Douglas Trustee Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Chigasaki, Japan. Posts: 1,660	Dennis, Going from DV "Tape" to component is a waste of time and a lot of money. For the best view from tape either go through firewire to your computer monitor(this requires you to deinterlace the footage) or just use the s-video output of your camera. As the 4:1:1 component signal from the CCD is compressed 5-1 in-camera before it goes to tape you will have that compression no matter what you connect your camera up to. As I said in your other similar post, unless you are doing all this for colour correction or testing broadcast safe colours it is all a waste of time and money. The s-video out it the simplest and cheapest way to get nice looking "uncompressed" video out of your camera for general viewing. __________________ Adrian DVInfo.net Search for quick answers Where to buy? From the best in the business...DVInfo.net sponsors

November 6th, 2002, 09:01 PM	#20
Dennis Hull Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: St. Paul, MN USA Posts: 151	No "magic gadget" So, today I read on the Datavideo website--- "DV camcorders have S VHS sockets capable of high quality output." Thereby I think dashing hopes that "magic gadget" DAC 2 would vastly improve on conversion circuitry in camcorder and give vastly better S VHS output to TV and vastly better picture. Remember, I am new at all this so it seemed likely I was missing out on some great and inexpensive piece of equipment that would improve viewing my camcorder output on TV. It had seemed logical that camcorders would use inexpensive DAC's thereby giving low quality S VHS signal and hence sub-optimal picture when I plugged it into S VHS input on TV. Anyhow, thanks for everyone's patience and helpful input as you gently steer me in right direction (just shoot) and educate me. By the way jojo, I just printed out eight pages from Canopus which starts out saying they use "a proprietary Native to DV YUV color space" and "...Native to DV as all DV is YUV." Just wait till I finish reading that!!! Just kidding.

November 7th, 2002, 05:02 AM	#23
Josh Bass Slash Rules! Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 5,472	What does this mean for a fellow like me who has a simple VCR from the late 90s? I still say it's probably worth the 8 bucks to go to a transfer house. __________________ The Bass' camerawork The Bass on IMDB

November 7th, 2002, 12:58 PM	#29
Josh Bass Slash Rules! Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 5,472	Well what would you folks recommend for sending out to film festivals and the like? I was planning on making VHS copies, but CDs would be nicer. __________________ The Bass' camerawork The Bass on IMDB

November 6th, 2002, 04:37 AM	#17
Andre De Clercq Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Belgium Posts: 804	Dennis, I don't think DSR11 has component output. Adrian, do you know of a good deinterlacer/rescaler for computer viewing, I would be very interested... Y/C is indeed cheap and acceptable for general viewing. If you want "better", than you need component. Agree that the DV decompressors and NTSC encoders in camcorders are not bad these days (there are however differences in the encoder part and they all include the NTSC standard limits)) but that's not the only part in the chain. The (NTSC) decoder in yr TV is even more involved. These decoders, because they need to process also weak and noisy aerial signals, use bandwidth limited chroma channels resulting in color leakage and compromised Y/C delay shifts. Quite often, neither the chroma decoder input filters, nor the subcarrier rejector trap in the luma channel are not disabled in Y/C input mode..The differences between Y/C and component in PAL and DVD (both 4:2:0 based) are even more pronounced.

November 6th, 2002, 10:24 AM	#18
Joe Carney Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Centreville Va Posts: 1,828	The Canopus ADVC-100 has gotten great reviews. It's DV to Analog and vice versa, goes for about $300.00, but net/street prices are better. Analog out is composite or svideo. Have heard only good things about it. Heres a link to the company site http://www.canopus.com/US/products/advc-100/pm_advc-100.asp Douglas Spotted Eagle used it during his VAST tour, had it hooked up from a 1394 port on a loptop to a television using Vegas Video. The picture looked great.

November 6th, 2002, 10:48 AM	#19
Andre De Clercq Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Belgium Posts: 804	ADVC100 is OK but no components out. Some camcorders have "pass-through" (1394 in > Y/C out)

November 7th, 2002, 03:51 AM	#21
Andre De Clercq Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Belgium Posts: 804	Dennis, the DAC-2 hasn't a better Y/C output than yr cam has. The "value" of the DAC-2 is it's component outputs (YUV)which is of course only relevant if yr TV has component inputs.

November 7th, 2002, 04:56 AM	#22
Zac Stein Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 730	Sorry for my french, but this YUV discussion that it will make your footage look any better is a complete wank. YUV at best provides a %10 better percieved picture, and that is purely subjective if you prefer a softer more vibrant picture vs a sharper more defined picture. Stop wasting your time about it. And another thing about the s-video worries, you think a company like sony or canon or whoever they oem their boards from is going to go to the trouble of making one better decoder over another, it is alot cheaper for them to produce one of good quality and produce it in high mass, hence better yields and less overheads. People here are getting it wrong all over the place, the dv footage onto your tape is already compressed, but it is still purely digital, it only becomes analog when passed through the dac. That is the only time!!!! Yes taking from your camera's s-video rather than your tv out on your vid card will look 100x better, that is because the s-video from your vid card is interpreted junk, not a real s-video signal, it is taken from rgb then interlaced then stuffed through a crummy codec and forced down a REAL cheap pathway. The only reason they put s-video on it, rather than composite is because the signal would look that bad in composite people would start complaining, and it is easy to put 1 plug and a composite adapter vs 2 plugs. kermie

November 7th, 2002, 05:21 AM	#24
Zac Stein Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 730	Josh, I really like the idea of burning s-vcd's for use in a dvd player. They are better quality than a vhs tape, cost less to produce, and never wear out. A liteon 48x burner (awesome brand and burner) is around $50 and blank cd-r's are like 0.20c each! and you are getting better quality than a VHS, it is a win win situation, plus you don't need any transfer house to drive to and spend time at. kermie

November 7th, 2002, 07:59 AM	#25
Andre De Clercq Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Belgium Posts: 804	Kermie, why would you think YUV has been "invented" and used by broadcasters all over the world? For the %10 better image? Did you ever see Y/C compaired to YUV ?

November 7th, 2002, 08:03 AM	#26
Zac Stein Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 730	Dre, it allows you to do critical colour correction more easily and basicly represents a standard that is easy to get quickly from source tapes. But for the home user it is almost usless, as we colour correct almost always in rgb on our computer screen. And yes i see YUV compared to y/c a lot, infact i had to do many comparisons with many different tv's when i was reviewing dvd's and dvd players. kermie

November 7th, 2002, 08:58 AM	#27
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	I see more than 10% improvement between S-Video and component (at least to my eye). I see much less noise in component video. The noise becomes very apparent on bigger screens. If you have access to a component source (DVD, Betacam SP, etc.) feed the signal into a broadcast monitor and turn on the Blue Gun (blue only). Repeat with S-Video and composite video. The noise levels (and differences) will amaze you. This applies to NTSC video. My experience with PAL video is limited. Jeff

November 7th, 2002, 09:58 AM	#28
Andre De Clercq Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Belgium Posts: 804	Kermie, I agree with Jeff. Maybe you need to compare on a somewhat "better" TV or projector. I suppose you live in a PAL land (like I do) and the differences are even more pronounced there. Do you know that PAL decoders reduce the vertical chroma resolution to 50% as compared to the original U/V values ? Do you know that Pal DL decoding gives an additional vertical chroma downshift of more than 1 line? Do you know that horizontal chroma resolution of a directly converted Pal DV or DVD (4:2:0) signal is twice the normal PAL chroma resolution?

November 7th, 2002, 01:19 PM	#30
Andre De Clercq Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Belgium Posts: 804	VHS, even SVHS are clearely inferior to DV and (good) DVD copies. So, if you can send "cd" use DVD. The best solution (if the native footage is DV), is still DV tape played back through YUV.