Appropriate workflow for Hi-8 Sony 8mm cassette?
What is the appropriate flow for a Hi-8 Sony 8mm cassette? I have a Sony DCR-TRV350 Digital 8 camcorder that has both an S-Video output and a DV output. It will play both Digital 8 (1 hour duration) and the older Hi-8 (2 hour duration) tapes. I have always assumed the DV output is the appropriate output for tapes recorded as Digital 8 but is it better - for the older Hi-8 tapes - to use the DV output for the or the the S-Video output, coupled to a TBC (I have a DataVideo TBC-1000) and inputed to the computer with an ATI600 USB card.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
OK, but I have only two choices - use the S-Video out with a TBC into the ATI card or use the DV out - the signal quality on the tape, lousy optics and all, is what it is and cannot be improved, right? Which is the best option for extracting that video data from the tapes for Hi-8 and which is the best option for Digital 8 tapes since I have used both over the years? BTW, my experience is lossless capture using the ATI card is on the order of 60 GB per hour.
|
Lossless Huffyuv is about 30-40gb/hour.
Uncompressed is about 75gb/hour. The shot footage on lousy optics cannot be fixed. Correct. The output of s-video (using lossless) vs. IEEE1394/Firewire (using DV) is a question of color fidelity and file size. |
Quote:
(I'm talking about D8/miniDV here, this isn't applicable for using DV for analog->digital conversion.) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
There's evidence of analog->DV degradation? The DV encoding will look worse than the source, and will look even worse after another lossy encoding stage to a final delivery format that's playable on anything but a PC. Consumer DV itself has a phony overprocessed look, even as DV originals. Analog source needs cleanup anyway before final encoding, so saying that the the source can't be ultimately be improved in many respects is simply not true. They're damaged goods, and unnecessary extra work. |
To the OP,
I was in the same boat as you. Family footage shot on either analog Video8 with a Sony CCD-TR66 camera, and later on digital Hi8 with a Sony DCR-TRV340. I captured the Video8 footage with the original TR66 camcorder connected to a green AVT-8710 using Svideo into a AT600 USB. The digital HI8 footages, I decided to capture as DV via firewire. I experimented capturing it via analog svideo-tbc-at600 in uncompressed avi with no real benefit. Experiment and choose what’s best for you using what you have at your disposal. |
Quote:
If you used "uncompressed' capture, you need a little reading comprehension help. No no one recommends uncompressed capture for analog tape sources. |
Removed a few not-nice comments. Keep it friendly! ;)
Quote:
Something else I forgot to add about the DV transfer method is that it requires Firewire/IEEE1394 cards in the system. That's an added cost, and there can be yet more hardware conflicts and install issues with that method. For some, it truly is plug-and-play to add a card, but for others it's not. Choosing the right card can also be important, as not all are equal in chipset/quality. Quote:
|
Quote:
:wink2: |
My Hi-8 workflow is the same as my VHS workflow, just swap out the SVHS VCR for the Sony Hi-8 camcorder.
|
Quote:
|
The camera's output is DV. You are making false claims and misleai8ng others who may have higher standards than you.
|
Quote:
|
Stay friendly. We can heatly debate methods without making it personal. :)
|
Quote:
Camera to ATI USB uncompressed = decompressed copy of the same DV output. Of course they look alike. Effectively they're both the same thing. Take your Firewire DV copy, open it in VirtualDub, and save it as uncompressed YV12. You will now have three copies of your camera's DV output. They will all look alike. And they all have the same analog-to-DV defects and compression artifacts. Since you feel that there's nothing to gain from higher quality captures and post processing, that pretty much leaves us with nothing more to discuss. |
I've never really been against DV as a shooting format. It was fine. The initial color was real, or 4:4:4 if you will. Downsampling to 4:1:1 was actually not horrible. 4:1:1 was a compromise that allowed 13gb in the era of Pentium III. Back then, 13gb was an entire HDD!
It's using DV as a conversion method that is the problem. The color is destroyed. You started with the undercolor (4:2:2 ish) of the analog, and then quartered it. So your usual DV-shot footage is about 2x-3x as good as DV-converted. DVD-Video MPEG was arguably better, using alternating halving (and modern encoding is better yet again) -- though the long GOP disallowed things like editing and timecodes. So DV over Firewire, or consumer-shot DV over analog, isn't really any different. But quality still surpasses Video8/VHS-over-DV by leaps and bounds. Also Hi8 and S-VHS. It can even be argued that DV shooting is better than the VHS format, but you can find samples to prove both. Meaning quality was close. Yes, something from the 1990s was as good as something from the 1970s. Not really a claim to fame, and why love of DV has never existed. Latter DV formats (DVC50, etc) corrected some of the quality problems, but those were pro formats. It also didn't help that you had multiple DV codecs: Canon, JVC, Sony, Matrox, Canopus, Microsoft, Apple, etc. Most of them were lousy. |
Quote:
I didn’t know that every newbie question or discussion here must go thru you. From reading thru all your posts here and elsewhere, it pretty much confirms one thing. Your knowledge is vast and no one can deny that. But, to paraphrase another forum member, your holier than thou attitude has to go. Since you cannot refrain yourself to butt in on every newbie discussion and shower all of us with your over-inflated “years of experience”, I will now stop lurking and posting here just because of your very presence. I’m so sorry Lordsmurf. But that’s the nicest I can get. Hope you don’t edit this and leave my reply be. To the OP, experiment for yourself and hope you find the workflow that works for you. |
Best bet: post all you want. I'll let someone else address it.
Actually I've tried to slow down for several weeks now. When I do show up I wonder where the hell everyone has disappeared to. I follow the same quality standards that have been recommended here and elsewhere for many years by many pros, experts, and advanced users, and by many others than myself. Thank you for noting that I've been answering a lot of posts and using those same standards and methods, at least as well as I'm able to emulate standards that I'll likely never exceed. I like to think that anyone can ignore those standards and do whatever they want. But belittling the standards does indeed get me riled up, especially since a lot of readers here work long and hard to get the results they want. |
Site design, images and content © 2002-2024 The Digital FAQ, www.digitalFAQ.com
Forum Software by vBulletin · Copyright © 2024 Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.