Mailing Lists: Apple Mailing Lists
Image of Mac OS face in stamp
 
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: quality question

At 4:51 PM -0700 4/27/01, DVD Studio Pro wrote:

DIGI-BETA is already Digitized, hence the 'DIGI' in the name.

Just because it has "Digital" in the name doesn't mean it's in a digital form as data on a hard drive. It only applies to the recording format of the >tape<.


You could use a Pinnacle CineWave, Digital Voodoo, or other capture card
that can capture SDI uncompressed, and add no additional artifacts to
the video. Then transcode the resulting QuickTime, uncompressed file
into DVD compliant MPEG. (Because DIGI-BETA is also MPEG 2)

BetaSX is MPEG-2. Digibeta is not MPEG-2. It has a very light compression of 2:1(using a compression scheme called Coefficient Recording Technology). When footage is captured by the Voodoo card it becomes a new form of uncompressed QT with its own "codec", so it wouldn't matter if the source was MPEG-2 such as SX or IMX anyway.


Thus, a Hardware encoder does not necessarily have an advantage over
software in this regard.

Voodoo yes (it's 10-bit), but Cinewave in 8 bit mode would be degrading the signal. But the point is you are using hardware to "digitize" the content before you encode it. One way or the other, hardware is involved. The QT encoder needs the footage to be in digital form, on the hard drive, in a QT format, before it can do anything with it.

So if one is going to spend $4-8,000 on a video digitizer just for DVD, then still have to wait through software encoding times, he/she may as well spend the money on a realtime hardware MPEG-2 encoder instead.


PS - The guys at 'The Orphanage' thought the quality of Apple's encoder
was good enough to use it on a DVD for their films, which they gave away
at Sundance.


I guess you get what you pay for. :)


But seriously, there won't be any Hollywood features on the local video rental shelf done with a QT encoder anytime soon. They are great tools for certain applications, no doubt. Maybe some of the motion menus will be done with it. But if the encoder was THAT good, it wouldn't be free.

The same rules apply here that apply to most customers in the digital world--

Good/Fast/Cheap---pick two.

IMO, the QT encoder falls into the Fast/Cheap category.



regards,

bill









Bill Kuper wrote:

But remember even if the source is telecined Digibeta, it still has
to get "digitized" before Apple's MPEG encoder can do anything with
it. Whether that's DV or with some other form of compressed video
capture, it's less than optimal, and feature films would never be
done this way.

With hardware compression, the video is going straight from the
source to the MPEG chips. And good hardware can make even 3.0 Mbps
look good (and that's well over two hours on a DVD-5).

IMO, software encoding is great for short stuff and stuff which is
computer generated (Quicktime files from AE, etc.).

regards,

bk

At 9:06 AM -0700 4/23/01, Daniel C wrote:
>. As far as quality,
>I suggest to you that if you obtain the
>highest quality telecine transfer from
>film to DigiBeta, you have nothing to
>worry about (even if you lower the bit
>rate to fit two hours in one disc).
>
>So, to summarize:
>Quality In>Quality Out
>
>If you happen to visit Santa Monica,
>California, you are welcome to drop by
>my Studio, for more info go to:
>http://www.dvdartstudio.com

References: 
 >Re: quality question (From: "Daniel C" <email@hidden>)
 >Re: quality question (From: Bill Kuper <email@hidden>)
 >Re: quality question (From: DVD Studio Pro <email@hidden>)



Visit the Apple Store online or at retail locations.
1-800-MY-APPLE

Contact Apple | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2007 Apple Inc. All rights reserved.