A question about quality loss...

If I export one track (or several tracks) from GB to iTunes, and then import the resulting AIFF-file back onto a GB track (ie. if I want to collide a number of tracks), does any quality loss occur?
If I export one or several GB track(s) to iTunes, then open and edit the resulting file with Audacity, and then import the new, resulting file back onto a GB track, does any quality loss occur? (Disregarding, of course, any editing or tweaking I might have done in Audacity...)
If I repeat either of these processes with a sound file, say, 30 times, does any quality loss occur?
Or perhaps a better way to phrase the question: Does bouncing the same sound file back and forth between AIFF and WAV formats, by exporting and importing, have an influence on its sound quality?
When exporting from GB, I always try to export it turned up as loud as it will go without distorting. Often, my aim is to level it out and make it louder (or make it seem louder) in Audacity, and I have this vague idea that it is better to do this with a GB file that is already as loud as possible, rather than one that could easily have been louder. Sort of a signal-to-noise-ratio thing... Is that a correct assumption?
Should you always, and under all circumstances, keep sounds/tracks from moving into the red area in the meters in GB before exporting a track/song?

If you captured using TIme Code, and you still have the (properly labeled) original tapes with no breaks in Time Code, you can safely trash your Media files as FCP will accurately recapture if needed in the future. But if you used Capture Now, without time code. you’ll need to preserve the original Media Files as they can’t be accurately re-captured.
All still images, Motion files, Titles etc etc should also be preserved in the same folder as your Project File.
If you just want to save your movie as it is, you can print to video - BUT . . . it will only give you an replica of the movie - there will be no clips to edit in the future and all transitions are embedded, so they can't be edited either.
If you had several audio tracks, they'll be boiled down to one track - so no editing there either.
Alternatively, use Media Manager to copy the project to one folder on an external drive - giving it a new name. (MM can move just the part of a long Media File that's needed - and junk the rest) .
This will free-up loads of space if you have large or duplicated Media Files.
Then, after you're satisfied that the new project will play from that drive, you can trash the original. But remember, MM won't copy Motion files etc etc - check that everything's there before you trash the original. I like to make certain of this by having the drive which contains the original, disconnected when playing back the copy. You can't be too certain!
Render files can be trashed as you can re-render at any time.
Hope this helps.
Andy
G5 Quad 8GB. 250+500 GB HDs. G-Raid 1TB. FCP 5.1.1. Shake 4.1. Sony HVR Z1E   Mac OS X (10.4.7)  
"I've taught you all I know, and still you know nothing".

Similar Messages

  • Question about Quality Gate Management

    Hi Solman profis,
    I have questions about the transport requests in QGM.
    My Solution Manager is 7.1.
    I have a Solman project, in which I activated QGM and created a Change and created two transport requests (one workbench, one customizing) attached to it, .
    I'm little bit confused by the concept.
    My questions are:
    1. Why I cannot see the transport requests that I created previously in the DEV system manually? If it's normal, for which reason is this designed like this? If it's not normal, how can I configure to see those requests?
    2. What is the difference between the Change here in QGM and the Change in ChaRM?
    3. In practice, how should the transport requests be created? By the developer in DEV systems, or by the responsibles in Solution Manager Workbench (Change Management Workbench)?
    Thanks a lot!
    Edited by: Charlie Red on Feb 13, 2012 12:08 PM
    Edited by: Charlie Red on Feb 13, 2012 12:09 PM

    For the 3rd question, I think TRs should be created in Change Management Workcenter, is it the correct process?
    For the other questions, can somebody give some input?

  • Doubts about quality loss from analog to DV.

    Hi, friends. Can anyone help me clarify this doubts, please?
    From analog media to miniDV tape to iMovie DV file, is there any quality loss? If the answer is yes, in which step does the loss happen? In the analog to miniDV or in the miniDV to iMovie DV file or in both steps?
    Resulting quality of imported analog footage to iMovie DV file is the same using either the above technique or the pass through technique that skips DV tape use (8mm camcorder media send to Mac through miniDV recorer)?
    Thanks in advance.

    Hi onClick,
    inside your mini-DV camcorder, some chips do the converting "on the fly" - from that moment, you realize no loss, because then, everything is digital, 000 and 111.- so, you shouldn't realize any difference by taping or pass-thru.
    in technical terms, DV has a much better quality then analog, but, for sure, any conversion is lossy. DV has a high compression rate, compared to what is done in a professional studio . but for the normal John Doe as us, you will not recognize any loss in quality after converting.
    besides: never judge the quality of the pic on your Mac's screen! computers and tv-sets have very different techniques in displaying video! you can just judge pic quality after playout on tape/tv....-

  • Some questions about quality of displayed video, matching scaled object, and a funny issue occurs in my VI

    Hi, 
    I am doing a pattern recognition project and come up with a VI (please find attached). There are something I am not sure and would like to ask:
    1. The VI works, but in a funny way: most of the time I have to switch the "Create Template/Search for pattern" button twice in order to get the VI works fine (there were only a few times I just need to click the button once). What is the problem here and how to fix it?
    2. I understand that IMAQ Match Pattern works with RGB images. So is there anyway I still can get RGB images pass through IMAQ Learn Pattern, IMAQ Match Pattern, whilst the 2 "Template" and resulting "Image" are still displayed in color mode.
    3. Is there anyway I can still detect the object if scaling becomes an issue (as I need to move from far distance to approach the object)? To address this issue, do I need to use IMAQ Match Geometric Pattern, which I learn from somewhere in the forum that it took a lot more time to match my result comparing with IMAQ Match Pattern?
    Thanks very much.
    Solved!
    Go to Solution.
    Attachments:
    pattern_recog.vi ‏128 KB

    Sorry about silly question 2 (RGB <--> color). Actually, in my VI all the IMAQ Extract, IMAQ Pattern Match, etc.. can only work with Grayscale (U8) images. Whenever I switch the images to RGB (U32) there will be errors of Incompatible image type (error-1074396077). As I understand, IMAQ Extract and IMAQ Pattern Match should be able to work with RGB (U32) images. Am I right?
    Attachments:
    pattern_recog_test1.vi ‏128 KB

  • Another quality loss issue: exporting

    I see a lot of people have problems with quality loss.
    I am importing an movie of an animated screengrab (using Snapzpro). This movie looks great - nice and sharp when viewed in QT. After importing into iMovie it's slightly blurred, notr a big deal just looks a bit "warm".
    However when I export it looks bad, diagonal lines are very jagged. I've tried export at Full quality, I've tried expert settings with DV-PAL and many other codecs.
    It's just about OK if I use "none", and then import into QT Pro and export with DV-PAL - what I don't understand is why I can't just use DV-PAL direct from iMovie.
    Is this something I just have to put up with? Would it better with Final Cut Express?

    Actually I discovered since posting the question, that the dimension is something to due with it, but too small rather than too large. I was capturing at 640 x 480 and I discovered that capturing 768 x 576.
    I also think that the nature of the image is crucial. This is large scale musical notation - lots of diagonal black and white straight lines so any jaggedness becomes very obvious.
    What I still don't understand is why the export from iMovie using DV PAL is not as good as the export from QT using DV PAL - I have to export from iMovie with no compression, then re export from QT Pro.
    Although I,m totally ready to accept this is a human operator error, I've also seen lots of people say iMovie does degrade on importing which is why I wonder if I need final Cut Express or Pro

  • 16:9 to 4:3 w/o quality loss

    I understand that using Adobe move and scale, bumping up to 133% will allow me to eliminate the black bars at the top and bottom of a series of clips that were shot 16:9.
    I also understand that given the choice, I'd love to have my entire project 16:9.
    However, only 1% of my project is shot wide screen and I just recieved the clips today. I tried to just increase the size, but the quality loss is HUGE. Combining 4:3 and 16:9 clips looks horrible.
    Is there another way?
    Maybe a converter program you know of?
    I do NOT care if I lose video on the sides. These guys are late in getting their material to me, so if I chop off someone's arm, so be it. I really do care about it being all blurry and pixelated.
    What choice do I have here?
    Adobe CS4 Premier Pro - um, Vista 64. I have the entire CS4 production suite.

    Harm/Bill - yes I agree. I'd prefer the entire project be one way or the other. Mixed footage is sloppy looking. Would you guys really mix the two? What would you do to make it look seemless or smooth? The screen it will be shown on is 20' tall and it will be shown in an auditorium - a few thousand in attendance.
    Hey Jeff!
    Can I actually do that? I'm not opposed to the black bars. Wide screen is truly what I'd like to do. My question to you is this: Since I'm already 3/4 through, and 98% of all the material is 4:3, can I take the completed 4:3 sequences and change them to 16:9? Would I have to start all over again? --- because that wouldn't be possible due to time.
    I also love the idea of putting a duplicate clip under the original - kinda "artsy" and that might even be asthetically pleasing. But remember that I'm going the other way from 16:9 to 4:3. Maybe if I take the few 16:9 clips and duplicate them at 133% placing them under the original 16:9 footage it would achieve the same look as your idea for the 4:3 footage.......   I'll see if it works. I like your ideas! You think "outside the video box".

  • Quality loss in Imovie after finalizing

    Having read alot about codecs and converting i'm still not able to figure out why there's quality loss after finalizing my project in Imovie. In the original .MTS files I can see, when played with the VLC player there's a little noise in the grey and dark area's but it's more then acceptable. After converting and finalizing it's a horror to watch. The weird thing is that the converted .MTS into .MOV files look better when played in Miro then in Quicktime.
    What advice can you give me on reducing the noise and making sure the movie looks best when played from a DVD on flatscreen? I want to do the editing in the higest possible quality because in the future I want to burn to BluRay aswell (I know that full HD is only possible when you burn to BluRay)
    Here are the details:
    1. I imported the material, filmed in 25P (so I don't have to interlace) directly from my canon HF200 into Imovie. I can choose between 960X540 or original size.
    2. I choose original size and receive a warning that this can cause a negative effect on the quality. So maybe the problem is caused by my old and small laptop, see specifications underneath my questions.
    3. The converted mov. files in Imovie appear to have more noise then the original and after finalizing to HD 1080p the noise in the grey and black areas is almost unwatchable.   
    Is there anything I can do besides buy a new laptop?
    Thank you for your help!
    Specs Mac
    Modelnaam:          MacBook
      Modelaanduiding:          MacBook4,1
      Processornaam:          Intel Core 2 Duo
      Processorsnelheid:          2,1 GHz
      Aantal processors:          1
      Totaal aantal cores:          2
      L2-cache:          3 MB
      Geheugen:          4 GB
      Bussnelheid:          800 MHz
      Opstart-ROM-versie:          MB41.00C1.B00
      SMC-versie (systeem):          1.31f1
    Intel GMA X3100:
      Chipsetmodel:          GMA X3100
      Type:          GPU
      Bus:          Ingebouwd
      VRAM (totaal):          144 MB
      Fabrikant:          Intel (0x8086)
      Apparaatcode:          0x2a02
      Revisiecode:          0x0003
      Beeldschermen:
    Kleuren-LCD:
      Resolutie:          1280 x 800
      Pixeldiepte:          32-bits kleur (ARGB8888)
      Hoofdbeeldscherm:          Ja
      Synchrone weergave:          Uit
      Online:          Ja
      Ingebouwd:          Ja

    No worries Still your remark about the external drive is someting to take in to account, i have mine hooked on most of the time.

  • Question about FCP and Varicam

    Hi everyone-
    I'm about to start editing a film. I'd like to use my FCP system. The producers are thinking they want to bring in all the footage in the native varicam format rather than downconverting to DV so they can save money by not having to make DVcam dubs, and not having to pay for an online... I've never edited in the native Varicam format before, but I assume once its in the system, its no different than any other footage...
    So, I have a few questions that maybe someone here with some experience can help me answer:
    1> Do I need some kind of card (like a blackmagic or AJA card or something to put into my G5 that will allow me to pull footage from a varicam deck? And if so, how much (roughly) should I expect to pay for such a card? Which ones are the best?
    2> I have 1.5 TB of storage on my system. How many hours of Varicam footage can I expect to get with that amount of space?
    3> Are there any areas I should watch out for that could come back to bite me in the rear by using the native varicam footage?
    4> If buying a card and renting a varicam deck proove to be very expensive, how much would I normally expect to pay if I wanted to rent a suite that was already set up with a FCP system which could digitize varicam footage?
    5> Are there any places that offer good tech support for FCP if you didnt buy the system from them? (In other words, has anyone had any luck with good 'after market' tech support packages?) and how much should I expect to pay for this kind of service?
    Thanks much!
    David
    G5Quad 2.5 GB 8GB Ram   Mac OS X (10.4.8)  

    I know a few people at the DR Group, but not Adam. You should talk to TJ, their Post Production Specialist.
    I had no problems with frame accuracy at 720p24. I captured all my footage via firewire and the timecodes matched perfectly. The interesting thing is that because the 24 frames are extracted from a 60 frame tape, the code jumps around a bit...skips numbers and goes up to 59 frames. But those frames you are working with are extracted frames and are fine.
    Onto mastering. Why would you go back to DVCPRO HD for your master? I mean, you CAN if your client requires it, and you can via firewire, but there are a few tricky steps you need to do. You can via HD SDI with very little (unnoticable) quality loss. But what gets me is the outputting to D5 and then recapturing. WHY? As you most likely read, we output the 720p DVCPRO HD sequence to 1080p HDCAM. Now their will be SLIGHT softening of the image of course, you are taking a lower 720p resolution and outputting it to a larger format, 1080p. But that is not only unnoticable unless you display it on a HUGE screen, but really unavoidable. No matter what you do with that 720p image, you will be blowing it up and their will be SLIGHT softening. Will the viewer notice it and be distracted? I highly doubt it. Will you notice it? Only if you look REALLY HARD.
    My maps and titles and graphics all upconverted fine. Yes, if you want them to look their absolute best, you'll want them to be the same format as your final delivery. So if you are delivering 1080, you can choose to do them at 1080. His idea of outputting to HDCAM at 1080, then capturing it again and adding the graphics is one way of doing it. But then you are adding compression to your footage not once, but a couple of times. Output...compression...input...compression...output again...compression. If you want your graphics to be the best they can be at 1080, simply take your 720p timeline and drop it into a 1080p timeline, rescale it and then render. This will take a while, but then it is full size...no further loss of quality. Will it be fuzzy? Again, yes, but so slight I doubt you'd see it. This is the workflow I was going to use when the Kona 2 was the only option. But the output, recapture, adding titles and graphics then output again was another option we looked into, but then discarded due to the complexity of it and time needed. I like simplicity.
    The G-Raids are fine for editing DVCPRO HD footage, but for uncompressed you will need a SATA Raid or Fibrechannel RAID. This is the reason I built my Popsicle Stick RAID, because I was going to upconvert to 8-bit uncompressed HD and render it. I needed to store the rendered cut on the RAID so that I could playback the footage.
    It isn't necessary to get an HD monitor if you aren't color correcting. If you have two monitors you can choose to use one to display your image via Digital Cinema Preview. Or you can get an HD LCD and view on that, but you will need a capture card capable of feeding it an image.
    Again, the workflow Adam laid out is a valid one, just one I wouldn't choose. My graphics and maps all upconverted fine, and the online editor who did some minor fixes for us (using the HUGE Sony CRT HD Monitor) commented that they looked really cool. If he didn't catch it, would Joe Public at home on his big widescreen tv being fed a COMPRESSED HD signal via the airwaves? Not likely.
    Talk to TJ...see what he thinks. He and I are good friends and we did the workflow I laid out in my blog.
    Shane

  • HDV or AVCHD editing =   processor utilization = import/exp. quality loss

    Hello,
    my question about processability of HDV/AVCHD Movies with iMovie. I have learned that HDV and AVCHD files are transfered in the AIC format. That should mean editig a movie would be always in the AIC format and I assume no difference whether I come from HDV or AVCHD format it should be similar demanding to the core2duo processor except initial transcoding from H264 to AIC - is this right?. When I save a movie out of iMovie do I save it in AIC or in HDV/AVCHD? Is there a quality loss transferring a movie back and forth from/to HDV/AVCHD to AIC since HDV employs mpeg2 and AVCHD employs H264 which are both compressed formats? Practically does this also mean that AIC can work as a bridge to between both formats?
    Thanks for your replies to my several questions!

    I have cut/pasted this from another thread where I posted it following a question from a Canon HV20 owner. The info applies to all HDV and AVCHD cams though. Might help you decide.
    This comes from www.camcorderinfo.com
    Compression (7.0)
    The Canon HV20 (Review, Specs, Recent News, $903) uses HDV compression, a very efficient MPEG-2 codec with a fixed data rate of 25Mbps, identical to the data rate of standard definition DV compression. HDV excels in capturing stunningly high-resolution video, but it is inferior to DV in terms of rendering motion realistically, due to its dependence on interframe compression. This means that at 1080i, only one in fifteen frames is a full-frame picture, while the intervening frames are compressed in relation to each full I frame. Interframe compression is much more efficient than intraframe compression, and allows HDV to squeeze a full 1920 x 1080 picture into a 25Mbps stream, recordable to inexpensive MiniDV tapes. DV uses intraframe compression, so each frame is a fully independent picture, allowing much better motion capture. DV also uses a superior 4:1:1 color space while HDV encodes via a truncated 4:2:0 color space.
    The inherent weaknesses of HDV have led many networks to deem the format sub-standard for broadcast, but it is still the best high definition format available on the consumer camcorder market. Most consumers find the stunning resolution of HDV trumps the superior motion handling of DV. A professionally lit HDV interview (or any HDV shot without too much detail or motion) can look nearly as good as footage shot in a professional HD format on a $20,000 camera. AVCHD, a new HD format that uses H.264 compression was introduced in 2006 and compresses video even more aggressively than HDV. Our tests of Canon's UX1 (Review, Specs, Recent News, $729.95) and SR1 (Review, Specs, Recent News, $1119.99) last fall show that while AVCHD video is very sharp, it suffers from grain and artifacts much more than HDV compression. The wildcard in the consumer high definition arena is a new MPEG-2 format developed by JVC, the MPEG Transfer Stream codec, which appears for the first time in the Everio HD7 (Review, Specs, Recent News, $1529). MPEG Transport Stream compresses video at up to 30Mbps, and may rival or even outclass HDV compression.
    Media (6.0)
    Like other HDV camcorders, the Canon HV20 records to MiniDV cassettes, the same inexpensive and widely available format used by standard definition DV camcorders. MiniDV cassettes have a run time of 60 minutes in SP mode, but can hold up to 90 minutes of more compressed LP video. Unlike the DVD, memory card, and HDD formats, MiniDV tapes are linear media so moving clips to a PC from tape is a real-time process. For anyone serious about the quality of his or her video, HDV recorded to MiniDV cassette remains the best consumer HD option available. To date, consumer non-linear video formats do not support the highest-quality video compression codices for high definition (HDV) and standard definition (DV).

  • IMovie HD6: HDV to AIC to HDV... quality loss?

    Hi All,
    I'm curious, when I use my normal workflow (HDV to AIC (imovie 6) to HDV), does it lose quality?
    If so:
    * Is there a way to avoid this?
    * How much quality is lost? Is there a visual comparison available?
    Thanks for any input!

    Dear catspaw,
    Here are my thoughts, based on my experiences, and what I think I understand of all this..
    1. Standard-definition DV (those little tapes, or the larger 'broadcast' tapes) is pretty much compression-free ..we-ell, strictly speaking there's some, but relatively little, compression used in DV. It looks perfect, although it is slightly compressed. The material recorded onto tape - and imported into iMovie - contains every frame which the camcorder optics see. So editing it is simple: all the frames get copied into iMovie, and you can chop out, or insert, anything you want. Using iMovie HD 6, or earlier, you can then copy the edited material back to a DV camcorder ..all the frames get shuffled out of the computer and back onto tape again. (You can't do that with iMovie '08, as it has no option to Export to Camcorder.) What you see in iMovie - after importing from a DV camcorder - isn't exactly the same as what you've imported, because iMovie runs on a computer, and uses a computer display, and that generally shows complete "progressive" frames of video, whereas a TV ..or TVs with cathode ray tubes; precursors to the latest LCD or DLP or plasma TVs.. will generally show interlaced 'half-frames' one after the other, each comprising half the TV picture, but shown in such rapid succession that they blur into each other, and our brains see a succession of complete frames.
    (..Here's a good visual representation from one of Adam Wilt's pages:
    ..There are two 'fields' of video, each made of half the entire number of lines down the screen, superimposed on each other, and blending into a full frame of video comprised of all the lines. That's what happens on a TV screen when the interlaced 'fields' of video blend together..)
    So standard-def DV is really plain and simple, and there should be no quality loss after shooting, importing, editing, exporting.
    2. Hi-def. A can of worms. There are several different varieties of "hi-def". What we're working with in our 'amateur' movie program, iMovie, is generally the HDV version of hi-def, or the AVCHD version. (And a few people may be working with JVC's version of 'progressive' frames, but with a lower total number of lines down the screen: 720p, instead of 1080i. 720p has 720 pixels down the screen, and records and presents an entire 'progressive' ..one-line-after-the-other.. frame of video at a time, whereas 1080i shows 1080 pixels down the screen, consisting of half that number, 540; all the 'odd-numbered' lines.. at a time, immediately followed by the other half ..the even-numbered lines.. slotting in-between the previous lot. That repeating pair of 540 'interleaved' lines gives a total of 1080 interlaced lines in every frame. Movement appears smoother using 1080i (..after all, the picture is refreshed twice as often as with single-complete-frame 'progessive' video..) but may not look as super-sharp as progressive video, because at any moment there's only half the total information of a frame onscreen. 'Interlaced' video is smoother, and any action flows more "creamily", whereas 'progressive' may be considered 'sharper' (..it is if you freeze a frame..) but more jerky.)
    So our 'amateur' hi-def movies may be recorded as HDV, AVCHD or some other similar format. 'Professional', or broadcast-intended, hi-def may consist of several other non-amateur formats, some of which are completely uncompressed and require extremely fast links between the cameras and recording equipment, and massive-capacity hard discs to capture and edit the huge quantity of data which such cameras..
    ..deliver ..for $150,000. Or here's a remote-control broadcast hi-def camera for (only) $7,995..
    (..Tell me if I'm boring you..)
    The hi-def cameras which we're more likely to be using..
    ..record compressed video in MPEG-2 format, or H.264, or some similar codec. The idea behind HDV was that the companies which make 'consumer-grade' (amateur) camcorders wanted a method to record hi-def - with about 4x the data of standard-def - onto the little miniDV tapes which we were all familiar with. So a method was found to squeeze 4x the data onto a tape which normally records standard-def DV data at 25 megabits per second. The method decided upon was MPEG-2 ..the same codec which is used to squeeze a two-hour Hollywood film onto a little 4.7GB capacity DVD. (Bollywood movies, as distinct from Hollywood movies, tend to be three hours long!)
    If MPEG-2 was good enough for the latest cinema releases, in nice, sharp, sharper-than Super-VHS form, then it was thought to be good enough for 'domestic' hi-def recordings. The only awkward thing about that - from an editing point of view.. (..but which of the camcorder manufacturers are seriously interested in editing..? ..they primarily want to sell 'product' which - according to their advertising - is terrific at simply recording and playing-back video. Like car advertising shows you how wonderful cars are to sit in and for travelling to places, but the adverts don't tell you about how tricky it may be to get into the rear sidelights and replace a blown bulb..) ..is that in HDV there's only one 'real' frame for every 15 frames recorded on the tape. The other 14 are just indications of what's different between the various frames. Therefore, for editing, the 'missing' frames must be rebuilt during import into iMovie.
    Steve Jobs heralded 2005 - at MacWorld, you may remember - as the "Year of HD!" ..It became possible to import and edit hi-def in iMovie ..that is, the HDV version of hi-def, not the uncompressed 'professional' broadcast version of hi-def, of course.. but ONLY with a fast enough computer ..and many weren't fast enough to import and convert HDV to editable-format in real-time (..no mention of it being the year you would import at half, or a quarter, or an eighth, real-time ..ugh-ugh).
    So HDV gets converted to AIC to make it editable ..and then what d'you do with it? ..Few (none of them?) HDV camcorders let you import HDV back to tape from iMovie. No Macs had/have Blu-Ray burners ..although you can burn about 20 mins of hi-def onto normal DVDs with a Mac's normal inbuilt SuperDrive DVD burner with the appropriate software ..DVD Studio Pro, or Toast, etc.
    (..Once again, there was some omission from the hoopla ..yes; you can import HDV! ..yes; you can edit HDV! ..er, no, sorry; no mention that you can't burn a 1 hour hi-def home video onto a hi-def DVD with a Mac ..iDVD would/will only burn in standard-def, and there are no Blu-Ray burners built into Macs..)
    Then came AVCHD (Advanced Video Codec; High Definition). This compresses video even more than HDV (whose compression is pretty much invisible, and is in regular use for broadcast material) by using a different method. And along came progressive hi-def recording, trying to supersede HDV's generally 'interlaced' 1080i hi-def.
    But the problem with progressive, non-interlaced AVCHD is that if there's rapid movement in a scene - if you move the camera, or something rapidly crosses the picture - instead of the "creamy flow" of interlaced video, there's a jerky lurch from one frame to the next. And with the added extra compression of AVCHD this jerkiness can be (..to my mind..) even more horribly evident.
    Anyway, unscrambling ..and then re-assembling.. hi-def interlaced MPEG-2 HDV is pretty much invisible - to me, anyway. The video looks sharp, moves smoothly, looks 'true-to-life' and doesn't have terrible artifacts and jerks.
    Unscrambling ..and then re-assembling.. hi-def interlaced or progressive AVCHD (..which is sometimes described as MPEG-4 or H.264..) - I know that you know this, but I'm also writing for others here - isn't quite as simple as doing the same for tape-based MPEG-2 hi-def HDV. Here's all the gobbledegook about what AVCHD can consist of.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-4_AVC
    ..Oh, and here's a bit about the "usability" of AVCHD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVCHD
    There are many more 'varieties' of encoding in AVCHD than in 'simpler' hi-def, such as HDV. There's less data sent in an AVCHD data stream than HDV (..AVCHD has jumped from 17MBits/sec to 24MBits/sec ..just below HDV's 25MBits/sec..) so the video is more compressed than HDV. And there are all sorts of video formats (interlaced, progressive, HD, 'Full' HD) which are recorded by different cameras under the all-embracing 'AVCHD' label. iMovie - or a Mac - has to work much harder to unscramble and convert the more-compressed AVCHD format(s) than uncompressing HDV. And has to work harder to compress the output of iMovie to H.264 (an AVCHD codec) than when re-compressing to MPEG-2 (the codec for standard-def DVDs and hi-def HDV).
    To - finally! - come back to your question "..is there therefore no advantage in using DV tape-based vidcams for editing purposes.." I'd say that there ARE advantages in using tape-based vidcams for editing purposes ..using your two categories:
    1. Non-hi-def tape-based DV is ..to all intents and purposes.. lossless. And the material can be imported in real-time, and be output - with no loss - in real-time, too, using any Mac from an old G3 onwards. Importing non-tape material into iMovie ..e.g; miniDVDs, or chip-based, more compressed video.. is more long-winded, and generally has to go through various external bits of software (..e.g; MPEG Streamclip or somesuch..) to put it into a format that's editable in iMovie. AVCHD can, theoretically - as 'AVC', without the 'HD' - be used for recording in standard-def, but there are currently few AVCHD camcorders which are built to record standard-def video as well ..there is the Sony HDR-SR12. But only iMovie running on an Intel-powered Mac will decode AVCHD, apart from separate standalone Mac software such as 'Voltaic'.
    2. Hi-def tape-based recording IS an advantage on anything that's less than the fastest, or highest-powered, of Macs, because it needs less "horsepower" to "unpack" the compressed data and to get it into an editable format through recovering, or rebuilding, the necessary individual frames. I think it's an advantage in every case, as not only can tape-based hi-def be edited on older, slower Macs (including pre-Intel Macs) but also:
    (a) HDV data's less compressed, and so motion is generally expressed - currently - more "fluidly" than with the more compressed hard-disc or chip-stored AVCHD,
    (b) HDV original material is "self-archived" onto its tapes ..you don't have to "empty" a camcorder's hard disc or memory chips onto something else - such as a separate hard drive - in order to re-use, or continue using, the camcorder: you just drop in another cheap 1-hour tape,
    (c) Tape-containing camcorders tend to be heavier, less lightweight, than fewer-moving-parts chip-based AVCHD camcorders. They're therefore inherently less "wobbly" and don't tremble so much in your hand ..that gives smoother, less "jiggled-about" recordings ..even taking into account the stabilisation built into most camcorders,
    (d) Tape-based camcorders are less likely to lose an entire 'shoot' by being dropped or mis-treated. Material already recorded onto a tape will not be damaged if you drop the camera and its tape-heads thereby become misaligned. The data can be recovered by simply ejecting the tape and popping it into another camcorder. If a hard-disc camcorder is dropped, subsequent head misalignment may mean that all data already on the hard disc is irrecoverable. If a memory chip becomes corrupted, all data may similarly become irrecoverable. If a tape becomes damaged, it's usually only a few seconds' worth which be lost. (..I dropped a tape-based camcorder in the sea when I was trying to get shots of waves coming in onto the beach from an offshore viewpoint, and a wave washed right over me and knocked me down. The camcorder was a write-off, but I managed to prise the tape out, and recover the 30 minutes of movie I'd already recorded. I don't really want to test it, but I have doubts about whether I'd have been able to recover my video from a similarly-drowned hard-disc based camcorder ..maybe, in the interests of factual objectivity I'll try it some day with an old, no-longer-used 2.5" hard disc..)
    (e) AVCHD camcorders - unless you're looking at 'semi-pro' or professional 'cost-a-plenty' record-to-chip camcorders, or that Sony HD12..
    ..are generally built for "point-and-shoot" amateurs. This means that AVCHD camcorders generally do not have the assortment of manual controls which you find on most tape-based HDV camcorders (..because the camcorder makers also aim, or aimed, HDV at low-cost broadcast users, too). There's usually far greater flexibility and more shooting options (shutter speeds, exposure, audio handling) on tape-based HDV camcorders than can be found on AVCHD camcorders. If you're just pointing and shooting, that doesn't matter ..but if you want to shoot good-looking video, there are generally - and it is a generalisation - more adjustment options to be found on a tape-based camcorder than on a chip-based or hard-disc AVCHD camcorder. In my experience - yours may be different - people tempted by AVCHD camcorders tend to buy (..and manufacturers tend to publicise..) high pixel counts (like "Full HD 1920x1080") and that magic word "progressive" (perhaps because it has the flavour, in English, of "futuristic" or "more advanced") rather than their being concerned with choices of apertures or shutter speeds and the clearest representation of what the camcorder's pointing at.
    In summary ..at last!.. "..is there therefore no advantage in using DV tape-based vidcams for editing purposes.." Yes; the advantages, I believe, are that HDV converts fast into AIC for editing; my perception is that HDV delivers smoother action (onscreen movement) than AVCHD; and with a suitable deck..
    ..HDV can be returned back to tape, whereas it's more long-winded and needs more subterfuge to export AVCHD back to a chip, or a camcorder's hard disc, for in-camera replay ..and thence out to an HDTV.
    As always, these are simply my opinions ..others may disagree.

  • Hello I have a question about Converting 60 23.98 Cannon Mark III footage.   In cinema tools, my footage stays grayed out. Both when I try my Compressor pro-res footage,

    Hello I have a question about Converting 60>23.98 Cannon Mark III footage.
    In cinema tools, my footage stays grayed out. Both when I try my Compressor pro-res footage, &amp; original footage from cam.
    When I convert from 60>23.98 in the Gopro app, it works fine.
    Does anyone know if there is any quality loss in this app?
    Also does anyone know another free software tht works great to convert markIII 60>23.98 footage?
    Thank u thank u thank u !!!!

    Questions about Cinema Tools should be asked in the Final Cut Studio forum.
    Russ

  • Questions about using the Voice Memos app

    I'm currently an Android user, but will be getting an iPhone 6 soon. My most used app is the voice memos app on my Android phone. I have a couple questions about the iPhone's built-in voice memos app.
    -Am I able to transfer my voice memos from my Android phone to my iPhone, so my recordings from my Android app will show up in the iPhone's voice memos app?
    -When exporting voice memos from the iPhone to computer, are recordings in MP3 format? If not, what format are they in?
    -In your opinion, how is the recording quality of the voice memos app?

    You cannot import your Android voice memos to your iPhone's voice memo app.  You might be able to play the Android memos and have the iPhone pick up the audio and record it.
    Here is the writeup about sending voice memos from the iPhone to your computer (from the iPhone User Guide):
    App quality is excellent.

  • Question about resolution of project vs. res of material to be imported

    i am trying to put a project together that consists of still images (which i can prepare in any resolution) and some film material (avi and mov) which comes in the size of 640x480, square pixel aspect ratio.
    what do i have to do in order to set up a new project in FCe to so i can import this film material and be able to create an output that can be burned on a dvd and will play on regular dvd players without distortion (would it need to become something like 720xsomething?)?
    my available tools are FCe 3.5 and QTpro. any help will be appreciated!

    ok! - the key hints about selecting "DVCPRO NTSC" and "select the motion tab and tweak the scale and aspect ratio settings" is probably what i was seeking...
    i wonder what happens to the material when i change frame rate from 35 to 29.7 (i need to do this, right?)
    some possible quality loss is not concerning me in this particular case because i will have sepia and heavy grain and stains as photoshop layers over the whole project to make it worn and look old. blurryness will be ok as long the jpg artefacts stay not too large and distinctly boxy.
    i will try this out - thank you so far! frame rates and codecs are still a huge mystery for me. i am used to dealing with all kinds of resolutions for web or offset print use, there i have dimensions at a certain number of dots per inch and once the system is understood, it is easy to accomplish about anything.
    i wonder if there is somewhere a source that lists video and film sizes, resolution frame rates and codecs and explains it all, along with examples when to use which...!

  • Questions about editing with io HD or Kona 3 cards

    My production company is switching from Avid to Final Cut Pro. I have a few editing system questions (not ingesting and outputting, just questions about systems for the actual editors - we will have mac pros with either kona 3 or io HD for ingest and outputs)
    1) Our editors work from home so they most likely will be using MacBook Pros - Intel Core 2 Duo 2.6GHz 4GB computers with eSata drives to work on uncompressed HD, will they be able to work more quickly in FCP if they are using the new Mac Pro 8-Core (2 Quad-Core 2.8GHz Intel Xeon) or will the mac book pro's be able to hold their own with editing hour long documentaries, uncompressed HD
    2) Will having an AJA Kona 3 (if we get the editors mac pros) or io HD (for the mac book pros) connected be a significant help to the editor's and their process, will it speed up their work, will it allow them to edit sequences without having to render clips of different formats? Or will they be just as well off without editing with the io HD?
    I'm just trying to get a better understanding of the necessity of the AJA hardware in terms of working with the editors to help them do what they have to do with projects that have been shot on many formats- DVCPro tapes, Aiptek cameras that create QTs and P2 footage.
    Thanks

    1. with the IoHD, laptops become OK working with ProRes and simply eSata setups. Without the Io, they can't view externally on a video monitor (a must in my book). It will not speed up rendering a ton, nor will it save renders of mixed formats. The idea is to get all source footage to ProRes with the Io, and then the Io also lifts the CPU from having to convert ProRes to something you can monitor externally on a video monitor, and record back to any tape format you want... all in real time.
    2. Kona 3's on Towers would run circles around render times on a Laptop... no matter what the codec, but the Kona does not really speed renders up. That's a function of the CPU and just how fast is it. (lots of CPU's at faster speeds will speed up render times).
    I'd recommend you capture to ProRes with Io's or the Kona 3 and don't work in uncompressed HD. You gain nothing doing it quality wise at all. And you only use up a ton of disk space (6 times the size in fact) capturing and working in uncompressed HD, which from your post, you're not shooting anyway. The lovely thing about ProRes is that it's visually lossless, efficient, and speeds up the editing process. Mixing formats can be done, but it's better to go to ProRes for all source footage, and edit that way.
    With either the Kona or the Io, you then can output to uncompressed HD tape... that's what they do for you no matter what codec you've edited in. ProRes is designed to be the codec of choice for all HD projects when you're shooting different formats especially... Get them all singing the same tune in your editing stations, and you'll be a much happier camper. Only reason to buy laptops is portability... otherwise you're much better off with towers and the Kona 3 speed wise.
    Jerry
    Message was edited by: Jerry Hofmann

  • A Question about RAW and Previews

    I have just recently starting shooting in RAW (mostly for the post production editing abilities - I am an avid amateur photographer bent on learning as much as I can). I set my camera to capture in RAW + L. I don't know why I feel like I want it to capture both the RAW and JPEG file, and thus leads me to my first question: Is it necessary to have the camera capture both the RAW and Large JPEG? I am assuming the answer to be no, as I am sure if after importing the RAW file into Aperture, you could always export a JPEG if you wanted one? So no need to fill up your internal memory (if using managed masters) with the extra JPEG? Is this thinking correct?
    Next, if you do import RAW-only files and then want to export certain images, do you have a choice to export the original RAW image? It seems that it only allows you to export a JPEG Original Size. To answer my own question, perhaps you have to export the Master in order to export the full RAW file when exporting? If you want to export a JPEG, you have to export not the Master, but a version of the Master? Is this correct?
    Lastly, I wanted to ask a question about Previews. I have my preferences set so that previews have the highest quality with no limits to size. What is the significance of setting it this way? I just assumed that if I wanted to share an image at the highest quality without exporting it, this was the way to go. Is there any validity to this? The reason I ask is that I don't want to have all of these high quality previews taking up internal disk space if I really don't need to. Is there a way to change the preview size once previews are created? Meaning, if you have it set to generate low quality previews, can you change it dynamically to high and vice versa?
    I know this is a lot in one post. Thanks for tackling it.
    Mac

    You can change the quality of the Previews in the Preferences -> Previews tab.
    You can regenerate Previews with the Delete and Update Previews under the Images menu.
    Regards
    TD

Maybe you are looking for