differance from uncompressed & hufyuv codec

[joejoems]

Is it better to capture uncompressd avi instead of using huffyuv codec? I've tried both and I can't tell the difference as of quality, but certainly the file size. I'm just wondering if it is better to do post production on an uncompressed avi than huffyuv avi.

[DaveQB]

definately uncompressed is better, but how much? not a huge amont from my testing.

where, i htink, you'll notice the difference is in the final encode to lossy format; especially highly compressed.
then i think the two different sources files would prove different

this is just a theory of mine and i have yet t prove anything to myself. (waiting for the other half of my RAID to return from RMA )

[spectroelectro]

It's not at all obvious to me that capturing with lossless full D1 is any better than huffyuv. Remember -- huffyuv is a L*O*S*S*L*E*S*S codec. That means that any information in the original video signal that got digitized shoudl theoretically be present in the huffyuv AVI file.
The advantages of Rudiak-Gold's huffyuv are obvious: you get al lthe video information of lossless D1 in half the filesize.
Some more heresy:
From my own hands-on experience, I can see absolutely no difference whatsoever between identical source material (test captures from laserdisc) captured in lossless D1 and then encoded to high-quality MPEG-2 DVD format via TMPGEnc ("high-quality" means an extreme encoding test, 8000 CBR) and huffyuv encoded to MPEG-2 DVD format in TMPGEnc. Doing a-B double-blind test with a friend swapping discs, I could not tell the difference between the 2 playbacks at better than chance levels.
MPEG-2 encoding throws so much video information out that it probably doesn't make any sense to worry about D1 as opposed to huffyuv capture, or for that matter huffyuv as opposed to Type 1 or Type 2 DV. Remember -- Type 1 or 2 DV throw out 80% of the original video information, while MPEG-2 throws out 80% of THAT 80%. So what you've got left after you've run captured video through MPEG-2 is pretty thin gruel in bitrate terms. The real miracle is that the human visual system barely picks up on any information after all that video information has been thrown out...

[DaveQB]

hmm i would have to run some tests to find this out for myself.

MJPEG is lossless right ??
notice a difference between MJPEG 15 and HuffyUV ??

i think the tell tale would be when the sources are compressed highly, say a 400-500 bitrate lossy

thats what i will endeavour to do one my RAID 0 is back together

[klined4lyf]

MJPEG is lossless right ??
notice a difference between MJPEG 15 and HuffyUV ??

MJPEG is unfortunately lossy, although the PicVideo MJPEG codec encodes pretty fast, and gives better (smaller) filesizes than Huffyuv. MJPEG also DEcodes much faster than Huffyuv (of course, there's less data to decode), in the case that it matters to you. But like I said, it's lossy, and at Q=15, you'll probably notice some difference. I don't use MJPEG much anymore since its compression actually introduces artifacts, but some people here that do use it recommend a Q=17-19. Most of my MJPEG use has been with PicVideo. I have used Morgan, but I wasn't very pleased with it.

K

[DrWafer]

PICVideo is lossless when the quality is on 20.
after all huffyuv gives 650-700 mbytes per min
PICVideo MJPEG at 20 gives aproximately the same file size.

at lower quality levels,15-18 file size is much smaller and the eye can see the difference.
what matters is the quality of the final compressed MPEG video and seems
that if the avi source is near perfect then the final MPEG is better too.

so huffyuv or PIC at 20 and a large hard disk.

[DaveQB]

PICVideo is lossless when the quality is on 20.
after all huffyuv gives 650-700 mbytes per min
PICVideo MJPEG at 20 gives aproximately the same file size.

cool
i know with my setup MJPEG @ 20 and huffy have the same throughput (12-13MB/sec)

Raw is 22MB/sec on my system,