Digital Realization

[tygrus2000]

I have come to the sad realization that todays digital devices are sadly lacking in quality compared to film sources. Your digital pics, while they look fine to the untrained eye, lack the true resolution to be used in media applications. Same as your DV cam, while it says 720x480 resolution, it has nowhere the image content of a true film camera.

The sad truth is using any of these sources for DVD are going to look like crap always, cause there just isnt enough digital information to match yet. So displaying them on a Tv or other similar device which is made for film content, will never live up to expectations and it creates a host of other problems that film producers probably never see. i doubt people using film are seeing interlace artifiacts and the like.

Now someone is going to probably post that their DV content is the best or their solution is the best quality. That is totaly BS. You cant get it, if you say you are, you are settling for an inferior product. Go sit yourself down in front of a High Def signal for an afternoon and you will probably come back and throw out every DVD or (S)VCD you have made from your own content.

Tygrus

[vhelp]

@ tygrus2000,

Your digital pics, while they look fine to the untrained eye, lack the true resolution to be used in media applications.
Yes, that's pretty much true. Also, that is why the SW companies "pray" upon those
customers, because of this fact. Until we all waik up and smell the coffee, we'll
be where we are, w/ "giants" ripping us off and taking advantage of us, and w/in
"legal" terms. That's life!!

.."lacking in quality.. .. .."
Yes, I agree here too, but to an extent.

Same as your DV cam, while it says 720x480 resolution, it has nowhere the image content of a true film camera.

Yes, this is true. But, you're not suppose to get Hollywood qulity from your cheap
DV cam. You have to pay TOP $$,$$$.$$ dollars for that. I don't agree that you
should, but its all a conspericy anyways, and you can't fight that.

The sad truth is using any of these sources for DVD are going to look like crap always,
Yes, and you can thank the so called Interlace for that. As I've mented elsewhere in
another thread, that Interlace is good if it's going from your DV device to your TV
set, that this is good, but if it's going from your DV device to your harddrive,
and then to your DVD (via encoding) then you'll loose out on quality, due to the
Interlace !! Period !!
Interlace is the mother of poor quality. No matter how much you cut it up into
separate pieces for descission, that the fact !! course, there are other issues w/
respect to Interlace and your CAM's settings (again elsewhere in a thread) like
shutter, speed, exposure etc etc. But, when you encode Interlace source, you
will loose very much quality. Why, becuase each field is Interlaced, and even
though MPEG-2 has support for it, it does not "enhance" it or it's quality. It
only (in so many words) the MPEG-2 spec tells your DVD player that it is sending
in Interlace fields. Again, in so many words, cause I don't have to true nature
or understanding of the issue w/ the support for Interlace in MPEG-2 streams.
Now, When encode Interlace source, you are encidng FRAMES (NOT) fields. So,
when you encode FRAMES, you are encoding the Intelrace (a.k.a., artifacts) due
to the Interlace, hence you poor quality. This is why I prefer to encode w/
out Interlace (if I can produce good quality w/ the use of de-Interlace) but,
other than that, you have to encode w/ high or very high bitrate to compensate
and even then, depending on how you held your CAM during footage and how MUCH
panning and zooming and moving etc etc is in your final footage.
If you had you CAM on a tripod and did NOT move it for any reason, I guarantee
you that your final footage will not require as much high bitrate when encoded
to MPEG-2 w/ Interlace on. The moment you move/sway/swing/pan/zoom/fiddle etc.
your CAM, you're in for trouble. Also, what kind of Lighting did your source
have during shooting. And, what kind of Lens did you CAM have during shooting.
And, did you use 16:9 in yoru shooting as well. There seems to be a bug in
using 16:9 for your CAM when you shoot footage. I have the Canon ZR-10 and
the new Sony DCR-TRV22, and BOTH these devices, when shoot w/ 16:9 mode, when
I encode either one of these, the final .AVI/MPEG-2 will show signed of the
jaggidness/zigzag/sawtooth along contours etc. This also adds to poor final
MPEG-2 quality. But, when I switch to "normal" view, the video contours
and so forth are smooth - - a bonus for MPEG-2 final encode quality.

My Experiment..
I'm going to experiment w/ a 16:9 attachment piece that I'll purpchase (for
the right price) and see if I get those zigzag's I mentioned above. If I
do not get them, than it's safe to assume that it's the lens/cam that's the
cause of those zigzag's.

Now someone is going to probably post that their DV content is the best or their solution is the best quality. That is totaly BS. You cant get it, if you say you are, you are settling for an inferior product. Go sit yourself down in front of a High Def signal for an afternoon and you will probably come back and throw out every DVD or (S)VCD you have made from your own content.

I agree w/ you on this !!

But, just remember what I said about having your CAM on a Trypod !!
Test this out for yourself. it's one thing, when your CAM on mounted on a
Tripod, and your footage (source) is doing the moving arond, ie, people walking
etc. = good final MPEG-2 quality. It's another, when YOU are holding your
CAM, and shooting footage, while:
* YOU are moving
* YOU and YOUR CAM are moving
* and, the source is moving
.. which = poorer final MPEG-2 quality.

I think that the only way you are going to be satisfied w/ a DV home footage
is only if you get another CAM, but with PURE Progressive Frame shooting.
And, as a bonus, if the CAM allows for 24fps, OR EVEN, 29.970 fps but w/
a real-time Telecine job duirng shooting footage.. that takes your 29.970 fps
and 3,2's it, so that you can perform an IVTC and get GREAT MPEG-2 quality !!
This cam I'd love to have

That's my two cents for now.
-vhelp