Tapes or discs format, which to choose?

[numbfinger]

..(another newbie queries from me)..
So, i heard that those 2 types offer different video formats. Tapes to the common DV standard or high-definition HDV in .avi, .mov formats. Whilst the disc(DVD or Hard drive) records in the MPEG2 format.
If so, from all of you experts, which one should i purchase. My main purposes are:
1. To record & transfer/import the content but without having to do any further compression/encoding, because doing so, will affect/reduce any picture quality.
2. I will then upload it to popular broadcast websites (ie. youtube or Google)

Are those Semi-Professional type High Definition camcorders worth getting?? Or would those reg. consumer type camcorders do the same type of job??..

Thanks again for any inputs.

[mats.hogberg]

IMO, since youtube is a low water mark with respect to video quality, a HDV format would be just waste.
DV is preferred if you want to do any edits, since that's what it's made for.
DVD/HDD mpeg cameras are for those unintereted in doing any edits - just pop the DVD in the player from the camera and watch. mpg is an end format.

/Mats

[numbfinger]

/Mats,
much appreciate for your reply. So, i would guess the MPEG quality, recorded on a disc or HDD, will be comparable to those recorded on a tape/DV. Is this true also??..Or the tape/DV/.avi still wins out in terms of picture quality??..
Thanks again

[mats.hogberg]

The DV still wins in terms of quality, all else equal, as DV video is higher bitrate than mpg. (Even if an mpg in theory can have any bitrate.)

/Mats

[thecoalman]

So, i would guess the MPEG quality, recorded on a disc or HDD, will be comparable to those recorded on a tape/DV. Is this true also??..

DV tape all the way. take this example:

On the left is from a Canon GL2 which is a prosumer cam. On the right is the same file encoded to 8000kbps using Uleads version of Mainconcept . The GL2 isn't the best cam in the world and Maincocept isn't the best encoder but relatively speaking the left image is about the most you can expect form any DV cam, the right would be the most you could expect from DVD compliant MPEG . Not a huge difference but still there. Also bear in mind those MPEG cams simply aren't all that great, read some of the reviews at camcoderinfo.com. Lastly they don't make good cams that record to disc if that tells you anything.



you could try some tests, here's some links for video:

The DV-AVI: http://www.nepadigital.com/reencode/avidv.avi 36MB
The MPEG: http://www.nepadigital.com/reencode/8000cbr.mpg 10MB @ 8000kbps

Keep in mind that you are not going to find a MPEG cam that can produce anywhere near what that sample MPEG is.

[numbfinger]

DV tape all the way. take this example:

On the left is from a Canon GL2 which is a prosumer cam. On the right is the same file encoded to 8000kbps using Uleads version of Mainconcept . The GL2 isn't the best cam in the world and Maincocept isn't the best encoder but relatively speaking the left image is about the most you can expect form any DV cam, the right would be the most you could expect from DVD compliant MPEG . Not a huge difference but still there. Also bear in mind those MPEG cams simply aren't all that great, read some of the reviews at camcoderinfo.com. Lastly they don't make good cams that record to disc if that tells you anything.

coalman, thanks for your input as well...Well, i understand your point, but i was thinking, maybe if i can get a DVD or HDD camcorders that record straight to MPEG2 format, rather than having to do the compressing/encoding process of the .avi files. Because i've done compressing/encoding from .avi to MPEG format and i know how the results look like.
Anyways, i was just curious if recording straight to a DVD or HDD camcorders will make any difference. Esp. if any of you guys who've used a DVD or HDD camcorders can share some more of your opinions/experiences.

[numbfinger]

The DV still wins in terms of quality, all else equal, as DV video is higher bitrate than mpg. (Even if an mpg in theory can have any bitrate.)

/Mats

I see. Thanks again for your input, /Mats.

[numbfinger]

So now, what other options can i pursue if i want to record something that is low in file size yet give the same quality of a DV or .avi files?? Do i need to go the professional video camcorder way with the High-Definition camcorder?? For example, i want to record a basketball game, seating from several rows up and i have to zoom in and out??..
Any inputs??..

[edDV]

Are you only concerned about the quality on utube/google?

Basic rule of compression is the higher the quality of the source, the better the video will compress. Does utube accept camcorder MPeg2? Tell us what they want and we can tell you the alternatives to get there.

These services will usually take your input and compress it further to flash or wmv. Each conversion lowers quality so if you want to optimize quality, you may need to talk to them about submitting in the format that will be displayed.

[Marvingj]

Dv is the way to go...Especially Editing...

[theewizard]

man for youtube, buy a camera that records to memory cards in mp4

remove card stick in card reader upload video

if you want some good video for a serious purpose buy a DV tape camera

[edDV]

man for youtube, buy a camera that records to memory cards in mp4

remove card stick in card reader upload video

if you want some good video for a serious purpose buy a DV tape camera

Why do the pros originate in a high quality camcorder, edit high quality and then encode down to wmv or flash? They do it to get higher quality in wmv or flash as displayed on the website.

A consumer AVCHD MPeg4 camcorder won't match that quality.

[numbfinger]

Are you only concerned about the quality on utube/google?

Basic rule of compression is the higher the quality of the source, the better the video will compress. Does utube accept camcorder MPeg2? Tell us what they want and we can tell you the alternatives to get there.

These services will usually take your input and compress it further to flash or wmv. Each conversion lowers quality so if you want to optimize quality, you may need to talk to them about submitting in the format that will be displayed.

edDV, thanks much for your input
To answer your first question, yes, that's where i'm planning to post my videos, mainly Google.
And as far as i know, Google allows files larger than 100MB, even over 500MB, to be uploaded. And yes, they accept MPEG2 format, among many other formats. I'm sure Youtube accept MPEG2, but not sure because i haven't uploaded anything there.
My original/raw files are in .avi format and yes, they're quite huge in size(at least over 3 GB each). As far as me asking them to submit the files in original/raw format, actually Google & Youtube would prefer getting the original files format. And of course i would love to, but unfortunately they're very2 huge. However i only compressed them to MPEG2 format, not in WMV or Flash. If the quality of WMV or Flash is better than MPEG/MPEG2, are there any freewares/programs which i can use to compress/encode them??

Why do the pros originate in a high quality camcorder, edit high quality and then encode down to wmv or flash? They do it to get higher quality in wmv or flash as displayed on the website.

A consumer AVCHD MPeg4 camcorder won't match that quality.

hmm, do you mind pointing me to a freeware/programs i can use to convert the .avi files to WMV or Flash??..thanks

[numbfinger]

Dv is the way to go...Especially Editing...

thanks for your input..yes, i've tried the Mini DV route, even compressed/encoded the files....

[edDV]

3GB avi? What format (codec)?

If we are talking about camcorders, DV format is the best place to start.

If 100MB is their limit (you need to verify this) then MPeg2 is very inefficient. Take your edited DV and encode down to wmv of flash. wmv is free, flash will cost you.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/forpros/encoder/default.mspx

If you want to max quality, find out what they use "on-air" so they won't have to reconvert your input.

[numbfinger]

3GB avi? What format (codec)?

If we are talking about camcorders, DV format is the best place to start.

If 100MB is their limit (you need to verify this) then MPeg2 is very inefficient. Take your edited DV and encode down to wmv of flash. wmv is free, flash will cost you.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/forpros/encoder/default.mspx

If you want to max quality, find out what they use "on-air" so they won't have to reconvert your input.

Hmm, what format?? that i don't know, all i did was import the content that was in the Mini DV tape, thru a firewire, and i got files ranging from 3GB to 5+GB

For Google, i don't think 100MB is their limit. Cos i've uploaded some MPEG files that are over 500MB, but it took a long, long time :P .
Yes, i believe Google accept WMV format. Is WMV's quality better than MPEG/MPEG2??..

As far as what Google use "on-air" after uploading them, it seemed like the quality is a bit lower than what i uploaded. I'm not sure, but i can ask them about it. My guess is they are using their own DivX flash player format.
Btw, here is Google's requirement video upload link:
http://video.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=26562&topic=1488&hl=en

Thanks again for your inputs, edDV. I will try the WMV encoder and see what i can come up with.

[numbfinger]

OK, this is what i found out from Google:

"Google Video has to pump your video over the internet with enough quality that
it plays and looks good. Video files are honkin' huge, and ppl won't
watch if they have to wait forever for a file to arrive. Google Video compresses
MPEG2 originals by a factor of 10. MPEG2 is DVD quality.

Because bandwidth is still cramped in the USA, Google Video compresses all the
vids for the flash player. That's only for the flash player you use
online or by embedding. The download file and the ipod and the psp
files are compressed to some other standards, btw.

Remember, too, that a pixel is a point of light that cannot be
divided. There are no partial pixels. So, if you give four times as
many pixels as needed to make a 320x240 image, then the guesswork is
removed.

Yes, reducing a video to a tenth of submitted size means you discarded
90% of the submitted information. The trick to getting great results
in this situation is to make sure you submit much more information
than the compression tool needs. That way, the compression tool has
all the info it needs to render down a small file.

So, Google Video's compressor works best if you give it MPEG2, 640x480, 5000kbps
bit rate, 29.97 frames/sec. You get a great-looking image at 'original
size'.

The flash player has a video window of 240 pixels high.
If your aspect ratio is 4:3, the original size playback will be
320x240. If you submitted a 16:9 ratio, the playback window is
400x240. If you submit any nonstandard aspect ratio, the height will
be constrained to 240 pixels.

This applies only to the video streamed through the flash player. The
download files behave differently."
================================================== ===========
With that info, anyone wants to offer me any further suggestions on how should i approach & prepare or how to come up with the best solution for my recording plans??..thanks

[JohnnyMalaria]

hmm, do you mind pointing me to a freeware/programs i can use to convert the .avi files to WMV or Flash??..thanks

To convert DV format .avi files to WMV, simply use Windows Movie Maker. It does a good job at that.

Here's one I made today (I was messing around with direct-to-disk time lapse):

http://www.enosoft.net/video/QuickDrive.wmv

[edDV]

That is an interesting reply from Google. Thanks for doing the research. YouTube may have a different position.

So they compress what you give them to 320x240 4:3 or 400x240 16:9 in Flash format.

They also say they would like square pixel interlace 640x480 MPeg2 5000Kb/s 29.97fps as an input.

So, 720x480 25Mb/s (25,000Kb/s) DV format makes a great acquisition and editing format. Encode the edited result to 640x480i/29.97 MPeg2 5000Kb/s and send to Google. They will take that and compress to 320x240 in Flash format using their $$$ hardware.

Maybe they will accept your self Flash compressed video but a Flash encoder isn't free and you don't have their $$$ hardware. If you give them 320x240 wmv, they will convert that to 320x240 Flash and that probably won't look so good.

If you also want a HDTV as a target, save the original DV format file.

[RabidDog]

UUUtube require basically VCD in mpeg4, 320x240 divx ..max 100mb or 10min . Hi-def would be massive overkill,

[edDV]

UUUtube require basically VCD in mpeg4, 320x240 divx ..max 100mb or 10min . Hi-def would be massive overkill,

In consumer formats DV (or uncompressed SD) is the high quality point. Consumer HD formats HDV and AVCHD are heavily compressed and don't recompress well.

DV transcoded to 320x240 Flash will outperform camcorder MPeg2 transcoded to Flash.

[numbfinger]

That is an interesting reply from Google. Thanks for doing the research. YouTube may have a different position.

So they compress what you give them to 320x240 4:3 or 400x240 16:9 in Flash format.

They also say they would like square pixel interlace 640x480 MPeg2 5000Kb/s 29.97fps as an input.

So, 720x480 25Mb/s (25,000Kb/s) DV format makes a great acquisition and editing format. Encode the edited result to 640x480i/29.97 MPeg2 5000Kb/s and send to Google. They will take that and compress to 320x240 in Flash format using their $$$ hardware.

Maybe they will accept your self Flash compressed video but a Flash encoder isn't free and you don't have their $$$ hardware. If you give them 320x240 wmv, they will convert that to 320x240 Flash and that probably won't look so good.

If you also want a HDTV as a target, save the original DV format file.

thanks for the reply again edDV..
Yes, that's what i found out from Google. So, no matter how big a size(resolution) of the files we produced, the quality of video which we see on their flash player will be less than what we uploaded. Because unfortunately their flash player can only play a max window height of 240 pixels :P However they said that, if we download the original file which was uploaded, it will show a much better picture quality than the one that is shown on Google.
Yes, i have uploaded a few files that adhered to their maximum requirements, as noted above. But unfortunately when i do a fit-to-screen windows while watching on Google, the picture/video becomes grainy.
They also suggested that, if we want Google Video's flash player to show it's max resolution, then we have to produce a 720x480 size image w/ a high bitrate. But even then, some folks say it might not make much difference.

DV transcoded to 320x240 Flash will outperform camcorder MPeg2 transcoded to Flash.

So, with this saying, i guess there's no way around capturing/recording with a DVD/HDD(MPEG) format and have it the same exact quality as a Mini DV(.avi)..:P

[numbfinger]

UUUtube require basically VCD in mpeg4, 320x240 divx ..max 100mb or 10min . Hi-def would be massive overkill,

thanks for your input and confirming that, RabidDog...yeah, i think Google and Youtube are the same company, aren't they??(heard Google bought Youtube??)..

[numbfinger]

hmm, do you mind pointing me to a freeware/programs i can use to convert the .avi files to WMV or Flash??..thanks

To convert DV format .avi files to WMV, simply use Windows Movie Maker. It does a good job at that.

Here's one I made today (I was messing around with direct-to-disk time lapse):

http://www.enosoft.net/video/QuickDrive.wmv

thanks for your input, JohnnyMalaria..yeah, i've tried WMM. Actually that was the program i used to import my .avi files from the Mini DV tapes. I think i tried compressing/encoding the same .avi files into WMV format, but they came out not as good..:P

[edDV]

They also suggested that, if we want Google Video's flash player to show it's max resolution, then we have to produce a 720x480 size image w/ a high bitrate. But even then, some folks say it might not make much difference.

DV transcoded to 320x240 Flash will outperform camcorder MPeg2 transcoded to Flash.

So, with this saying, i guess there's no way around capturing/recording with a DVD/HDD(MPEG) format and have it the same exact quality as a Mini DV(.avi)..:P

In the Google/YouTube context, Flash (FLV) is used to highly compress video for low bit rate distribution on the web. They do this by downsizing the video and compressing using a custom variant of h.263 MPeg.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLV

FLV encoders get best results from a higher quality source. This is also true for wmv which is also used widely for low bitrate internet distribution.

[theewizard]

man for youtube, buy a camera that records to memory cards in mp4

remove card stick in card reader upload video

if you want some good video for a serious purpose buy a DV tape camera

Why do the pros originate in a high quality camcorder, edit high quality and then encode down to wmv or flash? They do it to get higher quality in wmv or flash as displayed on the website.

A consumer AVCHD MPeg4 camcorder won't match that quality.

PROs do it for some adv of a commercial video or product, the encoding to format for you tube, is and adv stunt, hoping it goes viral and get them a lot of free publicity

for 30 seconds of your friends bing stupid you don't need expensive equipment you need something in your pocket so you can whipp it out and capture the moment

[numbfinger]

In the Google/YouTube context, Flash (FLV) is used to highly compress video for low bit rate distribution on the web. They do this by downsizing the video and compressing using a custom variant of h.263 MPeg.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLV

FLV encoders get best results from a higher quality source. This is also true for wmv which is also used widely for low bitrate internet distribution.

I see, i see-good info & clarifications...So, most likely if we want Google or Youtube to broadcast a "fairly decent" footage of what we uploaded, the minimum resolution size should be 640X480 with minimum bitrate of 5 Mbps...:P
Now, if we want to upload a file for viewing purposes, will WMV format be better than an MPEG format??..
Thanks again for your input, edDV

Btw, since i probably can't upload the original .avi file(s), because of their file sizes, i'll do another round of encoding. But at a much higher resolution and bitrate and upload it, most likely in a WMV format. I'll see how they look afterwards and tell you guys how it went.

[numbfinger]

PROs do it for some adv of a commercial video or product, the encoding to format for you tube, is and adv stunt, hoping it goes viral and get them a lot of free publicity

for 30 seconds of your friends bing stupid you don't need expensive equipment you need something in your pocket so you can whipp it out and capture the moment

theewizard, thanks for your input..yeah, i've seen those before on Google & Youtube but personally, i don't really like some of their qualities, even for advertising purposes. Some of them are grainy/blurry/choppy even when played at their default small resolution of 320x240..:P

[edDV]

Now, if we want to upload a file for viewing purposes, will WMV format be better than an MPEG format??..
Thanks again for your input, edDV

Btw, since i probably can't upload the original .avi file(s), because of their file sizes, i'll do another round of encoding. But at a much higher resolution and bitrate and upload it, most likely in a WMV format. I'll see how they look afterwards and tell you guys how it went.

Upload to whom? For what purpose?

If Google will accept your 25Mb/s DV format, then that would produce the best result. But I assume they place a file size limit.

If you were working with your own web designer, you should send them the DV Format file for encoding (FLV or WMV).

[numbfinger]

Upload to whom? For what purpose?

If Google will accept your 25Mb/s DV format, then that would produce the best result. But I assume they place a file size limit.

If you were working with your own web designer, you should send them the DV Format file for encoding (FLV or WMV).

I would like to upload to Google for the purpose so that i(others) can watch it online. Also because it seems they are the only one that will allow more than 100MB of video file to be uploaded.
Yes, Google Video mention they prefer if we can upload the original file(whatever format that is). But of course, those will be quite huge in file size.
As far as them placing a file size limit for the upload, i believe there is no published maximum file size at Google Video. There are a lot of videos 1-hour long or more. However, those are BIG video files, though, and it will take a lot of time to upload (maybe more than a day), and then Google Video takes a long time to convert them--again--maybe a couple more days or so. :P

Abt me working w/a web designer, unfortunately i don't..:P

So, if i think about it, at the end of the day, the quality of the uploaded files will be reduced, no matter what(heigh will be constrained to 240 pixels). By how much, i think it'll depend on how big of a file we send them.
Anyways, i'll try to upload to them 1 more time and see how it looks thru web-display.
Thanks again, edDV, for all your helpful & informative inputs!