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....-

Similar Messages

  • Display size query, + quality loss from iMovie originals

    Learning to work the iDVD process, but what is the word on a foolproof sizing method, such that the thing will display OK on any TV? I don't see any way to restrict display size in iMovie, and what good is the TV Safe check, if you can't control the display size?? Also is quality loss inevitable? I'm compiling the DVD from separate files, less than 1 gb ea. I used "full quality" Quicktime compressed versions from the original iMovie file (which look fine in QT); then pulled those back in to iMovie, then shared to iDVD. One of the files looks fine encoded, but the other has weird sizzling-oil standing wave artifacts, even on still scenes from jpegs. Looking for help/comment/expressions of sympathy
    Thanks,
    John
    Houston TX

    Hi v
    Quality of the DVD-disc depends on several things.
    • Highes Quality isn't Top - better is Best Performances (up to 60 min movie)
    confused naming - in iDVD'08 there is Pro Quality AND I like it.
    • Media brand - I use Verbatim
    • Type: DVD-R my choise no DVD+R or +/-RW
    • I save a Disc-Image and burn this at an as SLOW speed as possibly (eg x1) with Toast™
    (Disc Util tool can also do this)
    • I DON'T USE the function Share/Export to iDVD from within iMovie - IT IS DESTRUCTIVE !!
    Just drop the movie project icon (with a Star on it) into iDVD theme window - then iDVD do the
    rendering and so much better. Especially if there is photos in the movie.
    • Free space on internal (start-up) hard disc - should be about 25Gb when all material is imported
    and structured. This for iDVD to work with - iDVD can't use an extern hard disc as scratch.
    (less than 5Gb - result is most probably of no use at all)
    This is what come's first to my mind.
    Yours Bengt W

  • Best bitrate settings with no quality loss from MPEG2?

    I currently use Elgato's EyeHome to watch MPEG2 (DVD) files on my TV (thus no quality loss).
    I have just ordered an AppleTV and would like any advice as to the best bit-rate settings for transcoding MPEG2 to H.264?
    1280 by 720, 24 fps, Progressive Main Profile... which bit rate for no quality loss / minimal quality loss?
    Many thanks
    Rick

    Many thanks for your helpful comments.
    First, I curently use EyeHome: this is a forerunner to AppleTV and very good. I stream 100% quality MPEG2 (converted from .vob files): so the quality is just as watching a DVD.
    Second, the Export to AppleTV preset in Quicktime results in much worse quality. For example, taking a 5 minute sample from a DVD results in MPEG2 file size of 188MB. Export to AppleTV squashes this file to 77MB and a resulting drop in quality.
    Third, although h.264 does compress file size better than MPEG2, for the AppleTV, the only (published) setting that does not result in drop of quality in terms of resolution, is to rescale upwards to 720i.
    Through experimenting, so far using MPEG Streamclip and bit rate of 4MB/ps results in file size that is slightly larger than MPEG2 (as would be expected due to larger screen resolution) with no noticeable reduction in quality. Bitrate of 3MB/ps results in obvious quality drop. 5MB/ps obviously even better, but not noticeably greater than 4MB/ps.
    Thanks for all your help again,
    Rick

  • Quality loss from FCP to Motion

    Hi there!
    I'm getting a quality loss in the form of compression-based square artifacting when I send a piece of lossless footage to Motion from FCP. If there's a loss everytime one sends files, why would anyone use it? Does anyone know how to keep the footage lossless while sending between apps?
    Thanks!

    Patrick, thanks so much for your help. You're all really helpful on here!
    Exporting in prores still displays artifacts and they show up when I bring it into FCP (regardless of whether I import the clip fresh or have it saved back from a "send").
    Here's what I tried:
    importing clip directly into a new motion file (not sent from FCP) - movie displays with artifacting - upon rendering, rendered clip still has issue - imported into FCP - still shows artifacting
    by importing the motion clip with artifacts into FCP and display in the timeline, FCP changes it's settings to match the clip as usual - I then tried importing the original source clip directly into FCP and when I move it to the timeline, it also shows identical artifacts. However, if I bring in the original clip first, so FCP changes it's settings to match it, the motion clip still shows compression.
    Assuming the problem is with the transcode, is this just an issue with this video format working with motion? If so, I assume this means our video team needs to use a different codec. We're shooting a lot of green screen for HD video - any recommendations for a better codec?
    Also, is this an issue that Apple can address with future versions of Motion?
    Thanks again!

  • 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".

  • Quality loss from Premiere to Encore

    Hello,
    I am working on a project in Premiere with these settings.  The project consists of a PowerPoint presentation that was created into a video file. In premiere I inserted AVCHD video clips over the parts of the presentation that required video parts.  I am trying to create a DVD of this project and no matter what I do, the quality (mainly the text on the PowerPoint slides) has a good amount of quality loss...
    I've tried using the dynamic link straight to Encore, but the quality almost seems the worst doing this.
    I've tried MPEG-2 settings.  The quality is a little better, but still not crisp like in Premiere. 
    What else can I try??  Thanks!!

    Ok, I tried what you recommended and the text still wasn't crisp with the short piece exported.  I have to scale it because the source is 960x720, and the framerate stayed the same as 30fps.  I need this to be crisp and I'm not sure what else to do :/
    It looks perfectly fine in Premiere and even when I export it as a QuickTime format with full quality, it looks great.   But as soon as I bring the .mov into Encore it looks terrible... I try DVD and Blu-Ray
    Please help!

  • Few basic doubts about accessing AM from backing bean class

    Hi ADF experts,
    I have just started working in ADF Faces.I made a sample search page.My page is attached to a managed backing bean. I have attached command button on my page to a custom method in backing bean class.
    So on, click of button this method is called in backing bean.Now, i have few doubts:
    1)How to get values of various UI beans in this event code?
    2)I am accesing AM , in my method with this code:
    FacesContext facesContext = FacesContext.getCurrentInstance();
    ExternalContext extContext = facesContext.getExternalContext();
    Application app = facesContext.getApplication();
    DCBindingContainer binding = (DCBindingContainer)app.getVariableResolver().resolveVariable(facesContext, "bindings");
    //Accessing AM
    ApplicationModule am = binding.getDataControl().getApplicationModule();
    iS this correct ?
    3) After getting handle of am how to call my custom method in AM Class?there was "invokeMethod" API in application module class in OAF, is there any such method here?
    Please help me.
    --ADF learner.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

    Thanks for ur response Frank, actually I am from OA Framework back ground.It would be great if help us a little with ur valuble thoughts.
    OA Framework also uses bc4j in model layer of framework. We have a requirement where our existing developers from OA Framework have to move to ADF to make a new application where time lines are quite strict.If this would not be possible we will switch to plain jsp and jdbc,but our tech experts say ADF Faces is the best tech.
    In OA Framework, Application Module is key class for all busiess logic and Controller is used for page navigation. So, I m just trying to find the same similarity , where we write we add all event codes in custom action methods in the backing bean class of page, which we consider equivalent to process form request method in Controller class of OAF.
    But there are two things, I still want to know:
    1)While page render, how to call specific AM methods(like setting where clause of certain VOs)
    2)In action methods, the way i described(I found that in one thread only)to access AM, what is wrong in that?Also, I went through
    http://radio.weblogs.com/0118231/stories/2004/09/23/notYetDocumentedAdfSampleApplications.html
    where coule of examples use similar approach to access AM from backing bean class and call custom methods of AM(Doing various, deletes etc from VOs).
    3)In these methods can we set any property of beans on the page, I am asking because in OAF, generally we use PPR for js alternatives.But all properties of beans cannot be set in post event.
    Thanks and Regards
    --ADF Learner                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

  • Quality loss from .MOV to .AVI

    Not quite sure what is going on here. When using QT Pro to export from .MOV to .AVI, the quality is significantly degraded. Any ideas why this is?
    Thanks!

    Any ideas why this is?
    Both AVI and MOV files are generic containers so compare the codecs and data rates. Are the codecs used of similar or different levels of efficiency? If of the same level do they have similar video data rates? If not, did you increase the data rate to make up for the differences in encoding efficiency?

  • Highest quality digital from .jpeg to printer ? Best workflow to .pdf ?

    Hi,
    I use photoshop mostly to remove color info and resize for printing in manuals setup on InDesign. I wonder if there is a better route than what I usually do, which is : open in  photoshop > remove color info > resize > save to .pdf. My question is that I wonder about quality loss during the resizing.
    There is a little work flow disruption in the save for .pdf window ... one can no longer flash through here hitting the return button because the comment area is pre-highlighted so the return key is active there instead of at the former work flow "save" button. Is there a way to set a preference so that the comment field is not activated and one can simply click through the choice panels rather than drag a curser around?
    Thanks,
    Garrett

    Hi,
    I print in black and white because it's so much less expensive and there is no need for color.
    The photos come out of the digital camera as .jpeg and they are larger files than I think are necessary for a slightly less than 300 dots per inch print resolution.
    Work flow from InDesign is > PDF open with Acrobat > Quite Imposing Acrobat plug-in > save imposed .pdf for printing.
    People here in the forums used to say adobe.pdf is the best way to save the photos but I notice that when cutting down the size the resolution choice is pixels per inch rather than dots per inch but when saving to .pdf the option is for high quality print. I have never figured out why Adobe's dialog box choices have never included a 300 dpi option for printing, that's why I asked this question, there is no use saving at higher resolution than a printer can deal with but I haven't actually figured out how to provide an exact printer friendly maximum quality.
    Thanks for your interest,
    Garrett

  • Significant quality loss and jagged diagonal lines when exporting from FCP

    I've been working on this problem for several days and I'm going insane! Every time I export my movie from Final Cut, there is a significant quality loss. It is most noticeable in two ways: diagonal lines become very jagged (looking somewhat like diagonal lines in an older video game -- more a diagonal sequence of blocks); also, in some areas such as faces, the colors get a little blurry and there seems to some "pooling" of colors around the edges of the face.
    I'm pretty sure the problem's not in capture: the Quicktime clips that I captured from the camera are all pristine. When I play them in Quicktime, I can blow them up several times their original size, and they maintain their sharp lines. (I also Reverse Telecined them all with Cinema Tools, if that's relevant.) I also know the problem's not just my computer monitor; when I play these movies on my external monitor and TV, they look bad too. The clips look bad after I bring them into Final Cut, and while I'm editing, but at first I figured that was because Final Cut sometimes doesn't show full resolution in the timeline. Still, when I export, the quality of the original captures just isn't there.
    Some details:
    Captured from 24A progressive, Sony HVR V1U HDV.
    Using Final Cut 6.0.1, Compressor 3.0.1, Quicktime 7.2.0, OS 10.4.10 (all the most recent versions I believe).
    I've exported in many different ways: using Compressor (and have tried a number of different settings: the DVD Best Quality 90 Minutes default Setting, as well as using a variety of bit rates from 3.0-8.0, One pass CBR, Two pass CBR, Two pass VBR, Two pass VBR best; Video Formats NTSC, HD 1440x1080...I have tried many combinations. Regardless of the size of the m2v created, the files seem to have the same problem over and over. I've also tried exporting from Final Cut as a Quicktime Movie and with Quicktime Conversion. Same result. I also tried using different compressors with my Final Cut sequence: Apple Intermediate Codec (which I used when capturing -- you have to with the Sony HVR), HDV 1080p24, HDV 1080i60, Apple Pro Res 422, H.264...
    What's happening? Why is Final Cut turning my nice pristine captures into jagged foulness? What can I try that I haven't yet?

    Welcome to the forums!
    Unfortunately, you seem to have tried everything I can think of, and I don't have the latest versions of FCP to know if it is a bug. However, in the off chance that you haven't given this a shot:
    Take a problematic 10 second section of your timeline (set in and out points) and the Export -> Quicktime (not QT Conversion) and make sure that you have it on Quality settings that you captured, and select the "Make Self Contained" box.
    Look at that in Quicktime and see if it's bad. If it's not problematic, use that video file in Compressor for your render.
    Hope that helps!
    ~Luke

  • Is there a quality loss going from AVI to MOV?

    I'm using QT Pro to open an .avi file so that I can trim off a little bit from the end of the video. When I do that and then go to save the file, I can only save it as a .mov file. That doesn't bother me so long as there's no quality loss. Can anyone confirm this?

    one man's long is another mans....
    can you do an experiment for us. Duplicate the file and count how long it takes and compare it to how long it takes to export.

  • 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.

  • 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

  • Huge quality loss in iMove '11

    Hello fellow iMovie users.
    Yesterday I upgraded to iLife 11 to get the new iMovie and its "new" audio editing capabilities. I could ofcourse just buy it from Mac App Store, but I am principally against App Store and its strict rules, so I choosed to get it the old way.
    Anyway, I liked what i saw. Finally the new iMovie was about as good as the five year old one, and had some neat features like chroma key and cropping.
    So I decided to start practicing and create a short video based on some old DV-videos filmed with my Canon MV950 DV-PAL camera.
    I imported the footage into iMovie, and noticed some significant quality loss after the import.
    And it get worse. After I exported the video, it seems like it is heavily compressed, even if I'm exporting to QuickTime and selects the highest quality possible.
    I have some screenshots to show you the differences.
    This is the original DV-footage.
    The imported video. Notice the higher compression and the choppy edges.
    And this is the exported video. Notice the insanely bad quality, especially in dark areas.
    Is there any way to fix this, or do I have go back to iMovie HD?
    PS. Sorry if my post is a bit unreadable. I'm from Norway.

    Steve,
    While I agree everyone should have owned a HD camera by now, there are a lot of low-end SD cameras that are still being sold today. In this era of our economy, consumers are sensitive to prices; especially low or lower prices.
    And unlike the video camcorder boom of the 80s with Sony introducing the Video8 handycam (shoulder mounted camcorder), people today do not video using traditional camcorders. Most either do it through a digital camera, DSLR, iPhone or blogger cameras and are already mostly in an acceptable progressive format. There is nothing wrong with DV style cam. Canon GL-2 and the Panasonic DVX-100 are still commanding such a very high price tag for cameras of older technology and still being repaired goes to show that there are people out there still using it.
    If one can convert quality interlaced footage into quality progressive footage, you can use that footage and create good results using iMovie 11. I agree with you and Tom that iMovie 11 captures interlaced footage in full. But what's the use if it can't make a good product in the end that looks like what iMovie 6HD can do and when there are PC software out there including the free Windows Movie Maker that can do this with no problem.
    Consumers, unlike some of us, only relate to past software used and are usually benign to the fact of progressive vs interlaced. I have dealt with some mis-informed customers that they believed FULL HD only means 1080p at 60fps; anything else is not. I digress.
    With Mac users, they don't necessarily follow the same upgrade frequency as PC users either. Macs generally last a lot longer between upgrades compared to a PC because they don't have to run a barage of virus/spam/anti-malware growing definition files which ultimately slow an otherwise healthy PC down. Macs do not have to worry about this.

  • Quality loss converting Pro Res to mp4

    Hi
    I have a problem with the workflow from After Effects to a final .mp4 video.
    I have been editing time lapses in After Effects, and exporting them as Pro Res HQ- all good so far. However, I can´t seems to be able to convert the Pro Res file to a .mp4 (or quick time .mov for that matter) without significant quality loss. This happens if I convert using adobe media encoder, or if I import the Pro Res files to Premiere and export through Premiere.
    However, if I import the original JPG/TIFs to Premiere, and export using the exact same setting- I get a better result. Also, when I have uploaded the original Pro Res HQ file to vimeo, they do a much better job of converting it than Media Encoder or Premiere do when I convert to .mp4 (I´m aware that it is not the same conversion, but still..).
    So my conclusion must be that AME and PP does not convert from Pro Res to other codecs very well? I have to work on my files in AE, and I need .mp4 as the final product (requirement for uploading to a stock site). How do I do this without getting lower quality video than if my workflow and export was only in Premiere? After Effects does not render out .mp4 very well it seems...
    A screenshot showing the setting I use when exporting from PP or AME. The settings produce a good result when exporting other files from PP, but not the Pro Res files I have exporter from AE.
    Thanks for your input!

    You should ask in the forums of the programs you are using
    The Cloud forum is not about using individual programs
    The Cloud forum is about the Cloud as a delivery & install process
    If you will start at the Forums Index https://forums.adobe.com/welcome
    You will be able to select a forum for the specific Adobe product(s) you use
    Click the "down arrow" symbol on the right (where it says All communities) to open the drop down list and scroll

Maybe you are looking for