you are right that miniDV for standard definition is compressed, but it is a 'lossless compression'.
On the Dutch Wikipedia, there is about miniDV is developed in 1994 and DCT-compression is used.
So searching on DCt-compression tells me it is not a lossless compression.
BUt we are talking HD here aren't we?
HD and/or DVD! Meaning taking footage on HD or DVD.
"But we are talking HD here aren't we?" I don't know. I like to know or it is true like chel v Gennip said that
working with Mpeg2 is better these days then working with DV. He argued that the processors are 100 till 1000 times
quicker these days and MPeg2 hardware encoders are quicker and better now so working with Mpeg 2 should not be a problem.
and he suggested it is better.
HDV is actually MPEG-2 compressed anyway, but at 25 Mbps.
Packages like ExpressDV transcode this to a lossless intermediate fromat for editing, to maintain
the quality of the original footage (this uses lots of disk space bt the way).
In effect your man is arguing that 9 Mbps MPEG2 is better than 25 Mbps MPEG2?
chel v Gennip argued that 9 Mbps MPEG2 is better then 25 Mbps DV. A little different.
look at it from a photographers point of view: even a 1080 frame is only equivalent to a 1.5 Mp camera photo,
what happens to those when you turn those into JPG's?
The comparison is not wholly honest, I think. It is a stationary picture.
So you always see the difference.
well if you think that's best for you, then go for it.
But you may want to check out some more forums,
there are people who know much more about ti than me.
That's what I am doing now. I like to know more of it , and people who have the same experience.
Till know I met only people with the opposite argumentation.
so to summarise:
I'll just note here that the DV tapes I captured in 2000 are 100 percent readable
(I store them reasonably correctly) while the DVD's I wrote in 2003 from them are useless.
I hope they have improved the dyes since then...
It was not the conserving of footage on MiniDV or DVD, what is the subject in the Dutch group.
But talking now on that, I never store the editted endresult back on tape... but on DVD.
Till now the quality is reasonable good.
I use CD/DVD diagnostics-prgr to check my DVD's on a regualar basis.
Also, whem I look back a DVD and there is a slight hasitation in showing , then I make a backup from the DVD with CD/DVD diagsnostics.
So, I am reasonable satisfied.
Also do I write the DVD not on a fast acceleration but lower then possible, and each DVD with verify.
I have no factory so , I am not hasitated.
The broadcasting send via sateliet ordinarily with 3MBit/s
Does that mean his argument holds only for SD-DVD?
I think that he means that satelite is mostly sending on 3Mits/ s and most of us like
the quality of the broadcasting.
Then I take the same broadcasting film and capture it in 25 Mbits/sec as DV-avi.
So, the argument is 3Mbits/s is what everybody accepts. ( In europe it is PAL)
bb
Bbuse,
I think , I know to little of this subject and all around it.
For, a couple of months ago, my camera goes broken and nowing there are HD-camera's and DVd camera's I
go looking what is best to do, als for editting.
So, I came again that I could better buy a mini-DV Camera. also because editting was relative easy for me.
I month later I see the discussion starte on the dutch group and I do also.
But nearly al persons argued chel v gennip is wrong wit his arguments.
But Chel gives some hints to compare his arguments.
so , I think I believe him. But like to met persons who support his arguments.
you bring the disccusion to a higer lever, whereof I have heard, and sometimes reading about it, but
no personal experience.
So, I can't discuss about HDV and the relatives, you understand ?
I like to know what is the best for the future, when again my camera are broken!
Frits