Capturing - to what format, DV or MPEG2.?

Airjrdn · Member Joined: 07 Apr 2003 Location: United States

I have a Sony DCR-TRV530 and Roxio Easy Media Creator 10. I can buy other software if necessary.

When I capture video via firewire from the TRV530, I get two options, DV & MPEG2. Capturing a full tape (of often sub-VHS quality due to lighting), I get MPEG2 files in the 6.5G range (about 132m of video). Converted to wmv (which I'm not fond of) takes the size down to 4.2G. I can get XVid & DivX down to 400M to 850M depending on settings I've tried. I like XVid given it's open source roots, but both it and DivX seem "blocky". I'm not familiar with the DV format.

Given that these are videos of the kids (Christmas, birthdays, etc.), I'm trying to retain quality, but balance it with filesize (especially since I'll be uploading them for off-site backups).

I'm looking for thoughts/opinions on what others have done and decided is best.

redwudz · Mod Neophyte Joined: 07 Sep 2002 Location: AZ, USA

Since that camera appears to output DV-AVI, any 'capturing' in another format is really a conversion. Then you are doing a second conversion to a lossy format like Xvid? I would not be surprised the quality suffers.

I would transfer the data in DV-AVI format to the computer, then do one conversion to your desired format if you want to retain some quality. DV is also a much better format to edit in than MPEG or Xvid or WMV.

DV is about 13GB per hour of video, so you will need a fair amount of hard drive space. Once edited, then you can do your encoding to the format you want.

The 'blocky' appearance may be from too low a bitrate. (Too much compression.) Some filtering with a program like VirtualDub or VD Mod may also help the video look a bit better. This would also be done before re-encoding. VD or VDM can edit, filter and encode to Xvid from the DV source, it that's what you want.

guns1inger · So Very Tired Joined: 01 Apr 2004 Location: Miskatonic U

If you have a firewire/DV/iLink port on your PC, then you can transfer the data as it is on the tape. It requires around 13 GB per hour, but there is no quality loss.

If you capture first as mpeg-2, then recompress as Xvid, you are asking for artifacts. mpeg-2 is already heavily compressed, and doesn't like being re-encoded. Re-encoding to an even more heavily compressed format (Xvid/Divx) increases the likelihood of blockiness again. Add to this the fact you have noisy, low light footage, and you increase the problem yet again.

If it were me, I would transfer the footage as DV, edit if necessary, then compress to Xvid. WinDV is a great little free app to transfer the video to your HDD.

Frankly, I wouldn't use Roxio to scrape dog crap off my boots.

If you don't need to edit, you can use AutoGK to convert the DV files to Xvid files. It is reliable and produces as good quality as any tool for this type of conversion. If the footage is really noisy, or your need to do some basic editing, or both, you can use virtualdub. Virtualdub will allow you to make basic cuts without re-encoding, and you can apply some very good filters to help clean up the footage (this will mean re-encoding). The advantage of filtering is that you can use a lower bitrate for your Xvid encodes and get smaller files, or use the same bitrate and get better images. if you are feeling particularly adventurous, you can encode directly to Xvid from virtualdub.
_________________
The views expressed in this post are mine alone, unless plagiarised from others
Read my obscure DVD reviews here and my general blah here

DB83 · Member Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Location: United Kingdom

Of the two, DV will give you the best quality but it comes at a price. You will be looking at some 30 gb for you 132 minutes of video.

Your quoted file size for mepg-2 is not optimum. The best quality is 8000 kbps per sec and that roughly will translate to 4 gb per hour or approx 9 gb for your vdeo. Check what your capture settings are as they often pre-set at 4000 kbps.

But even so, that should still give you a reasonable quality capture.

If your Xvid or Divx appears blocky it is because you have applied too much compression. I have seen very good 2 hour vids compiled at 700 meg but the typical comprimise is to reduce the frame size.

I would suggest some experimentation with a very easy program called autogk with the source at mpeg-2. You can use a preset at 700 meg with auto width and the program will take care of the rest. If the quality is still not aceptable then select the preset of 1400 meg.

Dont't forget tho to change the audio compression as well. The smaller that is will mean more data-rate available for the video.

Airjrdn · Member Joined: 07 Apr 2003 Location: United States

I'm re-capturing one of the smaller clips (13m) to DV and will see how it turns out. The video (at least this one) is relatively noise due to the low light conditions.

For conversion, I'd planned on using mencoder since that's what I'd grown used to for conversions to my Creative Zen. I can setup a batch file and have it do conversions overnight. Would you have any suggestions to the command line parms for mencoder? Or, would you still recommend Autogk over that?

redwudz · Mod Neophyte Joined: 07 Sep 2002 Location: AZ, USA

You should be aware that the codec itself does the encoding, not the GUI or program that operates it. If you are using Xvid for a codec, then most settings for encoding are within that codec, no matter which program you use. Same with most other codecs.

If your final format is to be for web distribution, I would still edit and filter in DV, then encode that to the format of your choice. AutoGK is one way, VirtualDub or other programs are another way. I would first transfer the video in DV format to your hard drive, then try different codecs on a representative sample to find one that will suit your needs.

For web use, WMV, MPEG-1 are popular. For high compression, H.264 will do well, though it needs a lot of CPU resources. For medium compression, Xvid or Divx. Or you could encode to MPEG-2 and put it on a DVD. About one hour for a DVD-5 is usually best quality for that format.

No matter which process or format you use, I would keep your original DV tapes. That's one of the best ways to archive the DV format.

Airjrdn · Member Joined: 07 Apr 2003 Location: United States

AutoGK didn't show that the DV capture had any audio (after capturing w/Roxio). I'm using Vista 64bit Ultimate at the moment, and am now attempting an AVI capture using Windows Movie Maker.

If it makes a difference, I installed AutoGK in a VMWare VM (XP Pro). I did that mostly because I wasn't familiar with AutoGK and wanted to test out the different options there before actually installing anything in my main OS. WMM shows 13G/hr, so I assume it's capturing it as DV.

VirtualDubMod (something I already had) wouldn't do the capture (in Vista). Is that a known issue that VirtualDub will circumvent?

jagabo · Member Joined: 09 Dec 2005 Location: none

You have to keep in mind that noisy, shakey, handheld camcorder video will not compress well. You will probably have to deinterlace your video too.

guns1inger · So Very Tired Joined: 01 Apr 2004 Location: Miskatonic U

AutoGK should deinterlace and do a pretty good job of it as well. It has for me in the past.
_________________
The views expressed in this post are mine alone, unless plagiarised from others
Read my obscure DVD reviews here and my general blah here

redwudz · Mod Neophyte Joined: 07 Sep 2002 Location: AZ, USA

jagabo makes some good points.

Xvid or Divx and some other formats require de-interlaced video and camcorder video is very difficult to compress.

DV is interlaced. DV from a DV camcorder to a computer over FireWire is not really a capture. It's a 1:1 digital transfer from the tape. WinDV can do that. If you need to do some pre-filtering, correction, etc., you might look into Enosoft: http://www.enosoft.net/products/enodvproc/dvproc_overview.htm It's free for personal use.

I favor VirtualDub Mod myself, mostly because I'm used to the interface. And VD or VDM has hundreds of filters available, some specifically for VHS tapes or other noisy sources. Filtering won't improve the quality, but it can mask some of the problems and make the resultant output look better.

CSULB71 · Member Joined: 01 Jan 2004 Location: Iowa, USA

Airjrdn: You missed the correct answer from guns1inger -- use WinDV and firewire to transfer your video in DV (AVI-2) format. The Panasonic DV codec and WinDV have NEVER given me a problem, and I've used them with Win 98SE and Win XP (don't know about Vista 64 bit).

jagabo · Member Joined: 09 Dec 2005 Location: none

The Panasonic DV Codec has several problems. Use Cedocida instead.

Airjrdn · Member Joined: 07 Apr 2003 Location: United States

I installed the Cedocida codec, and now VirtualDubMod will open the video portion, but says "AVI: Type-1 DV file detected - VirtualDub cannot extract audio from this type of interleaved stream.

Prior to that, it gave an error about the video as well. Is there an audio codec I need to install?

nm, I converted it to DV2 and VDM opened it just fine.

gadgetguy · Contestant Joined: 14 Feb 2002 Location: Michigan, USA

VirtualDubMod is based on an old version of VirtualDub that couldn't properly open Type1 DV-AVI. Latest versions of VDub can.
_________________
"Shut up Wesley!"
-- Captain Jean-Luc Picard