Capturing Laserdisc

[Blazey]

Hi folks,

When capturing a laserdisc that is 2 sided is there a better way to join the files than MPEG2VCR? It would be nice to have them fade into each other or something rather than a dead stop. I usually capture as MPEG2 and I'd rather not re-encode the video. I could capture an AVI into VEGAS or ATI MMC if I had to.

On a side note, does anyone with Vegas 5.0 experience notice that the MainConcept encoder kinda sucks? Or am I doing something wrong!?

Thanks
Chris

[Sefy]

mmmm, I strongly suggest you do captures using MJPEG codec, will provide you with the best quality for encoding later on. also, why do fades ? aren't the two parts of the same movie ? they should be joined as one piece.

What is your primary purpose for capturing ? doing DVD or VCD or DivX ?

[Blazey]

End result would be a DVD. I have some Lasers that are WAY oop, and I fear they will deteriorate over time. I will try the MJPEG codec. In all honesty, my AVI captures are usually less than successful, but the MPEG2 caps look great. Even with Lord Smurfs AVI ATI Guide, they don't look nearly as good as MPEG caps. Perhaps it is my codec. I've been usuing the Huffyuv.

[Sefy]

Huffyuv is a good codec, but i'm not sure it's quality is as good as MJPEG. I know i've always used MJPEG and i've had excellent encodes from them and since you aim for a DVD, the better primary quality you have will improve the overall quality.

[Blazey]

Perhaps I'd be better off capping to my DV-m10s and then ripping the disc to the PC for authoring. I just hate to bypass all this expensive PC equip for a $350 solution I bought on Amazon.

[Sefy]

I don't know the type of equipment you have, but if it gives good quality, then ignore what I said

[dphirschler]

Hell, if your MPEG caps look great, then you could always convert to AVI and then edit (join) and re-encode. But honestly... MPEG captures better than Huffy? You gotta be doing something wrong.


Darryl

[tedkunich]

Huffyuv is a good codec, but i'm not sure it's quality is as good as MJPEG. I know i've always used MJPEG and i've had excellent encodes from them and since you aim for a DVD, the better primary quality you have will improve the overall quality.

Huffyuv is a LOSSLESS codec, unlike the LOSSY MJPEG codec. Your assumtions are reversed.


T

[gshelley61]

I capture my LD's using a standalone DVD recorder (DVD-Video MPEG2), then frame accurately cut and join the LD sides with Womble MPEG Video Wizard. There is no re-encoding doing it this way (except at the edit point if it is not an I frame). MPEG-VCR also edits MPEG2 without re-encoding.

[Sefy]

@tedkunich, don't know what codec you are using but I have an MJPEG Lossless Codec from PicVideo and if you don't believe, i'll take a screen shot to prove it. Just any known company uses MJPEG and not Huffyuv.

[Dr_Layne]

If both are lossless codecs, how can one look better than another? If one looks better than the other than one of them is not truely lossless.

[Sefy]

It all depends on CPU usage and how it handles the Data I suppose. Either way, MJPEG is a world known codec and is used by the largest video companies. Huffyuv is more of a freeware home user alternative.

[chicola]

Sefy,

Anything that says ...PEG is all but lossless!

[Sefy]

chicola, i'm too tired to argue, so check these links:

http://www.pegasusimaging.com/picvideomjpeg.htm
http://www.inciteonline.com/incite/products/video_printer_spec.asp
http://www.leadtools.com/Utilities/Video-Codecs/codec_MCMP_MJPEG.htm
http://www.matroska.org/technical/specs/codecid/

Lossless or not, i'm not gonna argue with every single company in the world and calling them liars for saying it's MJPEG Lossless.

[Blazey]

Oh MAN! Too many different viewpoints! I agree that my MPEG caps should NOT look better than an AVI. I am just stumped. PC is a P4 3.0Ghz H/T w/ 512k DDR 2. H/D is a 7200 RPM W/D. The O/S is on a separate drive. This should be WAY more than adaquate to cap AVI's with perfect quality, right???

[Sefy]

Blazey, you are correct, your system is more then good for capturing high quality AVI's, so my troubleshooting would say you have either some compatibility issues in your hardware, or something in the software is not set up correctly.

[Blazey]

The capture device is an ATI AIW 9000 and I am using ATI MMC 9.0 and Lordsmurf's AVI guide. I must've done something wrong in the setup like you said. The video is all blockey and worse than an Mpeg 1 VCD. Perhaps I set up my codec wrong.

[chicola]

http://www.leadtools.com/Utilities/Video-Codecs/codec_MCMP_MJPEG.htm

Sefy,

I'm also tired so read in this link of yours, the following quote:

"What is MCMP?
MCMP, or Motion CMP, is a video adaptation of LEAD's proprietary CMP compression code. MCMP delivers smaller file sizes and can maintain better image quality than MJPEG with the same or better image quality."

Now, explain to me how can one develop a proprietary compression mode that can give you a better image quality than MJPEG if MJPEG is lossless????

You can have different compression types in the ...PEG world - mathematically lossless, visual lossless & lossy.

And the one less used is the "mathematically lossless"!

[Sefy]

@Blazey, have you tried to contact Lordsmurf ? he is a very friendly guy and has a lot of experience in that specific area, so he might be able to pinpoint the area of problem in your setup

@chicola, let me ask you a similiar question, how can one company create MPEG1 encodes which have higher quality then other companies MPEG1 when it's a standard that everyone follows and has same compression ? it's all about how their algorithem will handle the picture itself.

You can capture Uncompressed AVI and still have far worse quality then using VCD capture if your settings are garbage. Lossless or not Lossless, show me one place that is professional that uses Huffyuv for work. Don't get me wrong, I got nothing against it, but if it is so superior, i'd expect large companies to use it too.

[vhelp]

If both are lossless codecs, how can one look better than another?
If one looks better than the other than one of them is not truely lossless.

I think that there is a missunderstanding here. Well, just slightely.

yes, MJPEG is lossy. So's Huffy (to a degree) Don't believe me ?? Well, do this
then..

* Capture something of good quality (ie, laserdisc, commercial vhs, cable tv, etc)

* Next..

* using virtualdub (vdub) and set save as, to Direct Stream Copy and save as
... a new AVI file.. and note the filesize.

* Now..

* Take this same 1 sec scene, and re-save it, but this time, using the Huffy codec,
... (assuming again, you use) and THIS TIME, use Full processing mode
... and re-save using the HUFFY codec.

Now, note the filesize for both

Anyways..


Think of MJPEG as being lossy like this.. when you first capture it as MJPEG, its at
it's maximum (quality'wise) and just as equial to HUFFY in every degree (give or take
the color space difference) However, when you use the same steps as you did in the
above analyigy, and save the MJPEG again, using MJPEG code, you are in fact performing
another lossy copy. But, just remember.. when you first use it, it's as lossless as
Huffy

-vhelp

[chicola]

Sefy,

I agree with you in possible comparisons between codecs - Huffyuv and MJPEG. No argue about that.

But, what I was trying to tell you is precisely what you've just said: the algorithm has freedom enough to let different companies achieve different compression ratios and different visual quality, dependent on the weights they give to the different image aspects.

And, this means it's not "lossless".

To assure a "lossless" image everyone must be using the same "weights", and consequently achieve the same final size.

[Sefy]

chicola, i have no argument about that, but that would mean that Huffyuv isn't Lossless either, cause it also uses compression, and your initial argument stated "Huffyuv is a LOSSLESS codec, unlike the LOSSY MJPEG codec. Your assumtions are reversed. " is incorrect as well!

Everything that uses compression WILL LOSS data! only Uncompressed will be LOSSLESS and even that! won't give you 100% quality.

[chicola]

Sorry m8, it was tedkunich that said that. Not me.

And, just for a more mundane example, ZIP uses compression and it doesn't LOOSE data!

[tedkunich]

@tedkunich, don't know what codec you are using but I have an MJPEG Lossless Codec from PicVideo and if you don't believe, i'll take a screen shot to prove it. Just any known company uses MJPEG and not Huffyuv.

@Sefy:
Not wanting to get into a pissing match with you, but a single screen shot is not going to prove a thing. I just looked at Pagasus's web site and nowhere could I see that their codec is lossless. http://www.jpg.com/picvideomjpeg.htm

JPEG is world renowned as being a lossy compression algorithm. MJPEG is a variant of JPEG applied to moving pictures on a frame by frame basis. The amount of loss that this technique incurrs is a factor of how much compression is used - large amounts of compression is achieved by throwing away more and more of the original data, little compression throws away very little of the orignal data.

If you want to really test the theory, take any source and save a copy with Huffyuv and one with MJPEG. Then pick a particular frame, any frame, from the original source and then save that frame as a BMP (Virtualdub allows this). Repeat with the Huffyuv encoded file and the MJPEG file. If you compare every bit of the Huffyuv BMP file with the original, they will be identical. You will find that there will be differences between the original and the MJPEG BMP - i.e. there was some loss of data, how much difference will depend on the compression settings used.

You can make the results more apparent by repeatedly saving a copy from a copy using the Huffyuv and MJPEG codecs. You will most likely see a degradation over the generations with the MJPEG encoded material, while the Huffyuv will not degrade.

RE your comment about professionals not using freeware - that is not too uncommon here in the States... if the company IT folks cannot prove they own it, they do not allow it. I have worked at many places that frown on shareware and freeware software. I was at one place that outright banned it.



Peace

T
[/url]

[Sefy]

@chicola, my apologise on misquoting, but regarding your comment on "ZIP" it's irrelevent, you can't use the data unless you UNCOMPRESS it first.

@tedkunich, two things, one: http://www.pegasusimaging.com/picvideolossless.htm
That's from the JPG webpage you quoted me, using the links from the pulldown menu, so I really don't see how you didn't see anywhere that says Lossless

Secondly, allow me to quote you now ok ? "If you compare every bit of the Huffyuv BMP file with the original, they will be identical" - If I use Huffyuv on an Uncompressed AVI (no compression of any kind) you still claim it will be identical ? cause if not, then it's also a compression of different kind. and as long as it has compression in it, you loss data.

I do however would like to be corrected on that. as for the Shareware/Freeware issues, I find that rather very strange that a major company which can improve their products, not to use tools such as this or licence it in some way. GNU licence is free for all as far as I know. So they have no reason not using it.

It's not a "pissing" contest, it's just to prove that the debate of Lossless MJPEG compared to Huffyuv is not relevent. Each compresses differently, you WILL loss data compared to Uncompressed AVI.

[Dr_Layne]

So you're saying there's no such thing as a lossless codec?

And I suppose Flac and Shn are not lossless audio codecs becuase you can play them without uncmpressing them?

These codecs do not lose data, so why would a lossless video codec?

[Sefy]

I'm saying that if something suddenly becomes smaller then the original, then some compression is at use. Unless you have some sort of a ZIP file for Video that restores Data to the exact place it came from, then I don't believe in any lossless, it only goes by "how much" you lose that you notice.

If Huffyuv is as amazing and wonderful, then I see no reason why professional companies which deal with Video, would refuse to use something that is given free! or atleast create their own variation. Just doesn't seem so logical. Just like people saying there is no MJPEG Lossless when every single company out there has their version of it

[lordsmurf]

So you're saying there's no such thing as a lossless codec?

I say yes, no such thing. BJ_M shot me down on that, but it's because he was talking about things I'd never heard of. Some 4:4:4, etc. In the consumer realm of hobby, I still think my statement is correct. But not blanket *all* codecs. HuffYUV and MJPEG are only "lossless" because the compression supposedly does not harm image quality, though it's debatable. Do not believe company marketing hype, as I can show you companies that proclaim DV and MPEG4 as lossless or "pro" quality.


@ original poster:

If you are using ATI MMC and capturing with one of my guides, and the quality is worse, then either you have a setting wrong, or the codec is installed badly or something. I use the HuffYUV codec that's on the guide. Some of these things can be tough to figure out. Recheck it, and go slowly.

[gshelley61]

codec = compression/decompression algorithm

it would be more accurate to say that certain codecs, like HuffyUV, are relatively lossless

[Sillyname]

MJPEG is second to uncompressed. It is what all previous analog capture cards, that were worth a damn, capture in. It can be larger in size than DV, which has a 5:1 compression ratio, no matter how you slice it. Laserdiscs cannot be ripped, so besides capturing it uncompressed(VERY fast RAID array) MJPEG is there. Lord Smurf mentioned BJ_M saying something about colorspace. MJPEG captures 4 Red to 2 Green to 2 Blue Pixels(4:2:2). DV only handles 4 Red to 1 Green to 1 Blue Pixels.(4:1:1). Therefore MJPEG preserves more of the color saturation than DV. DV was only created to get info on smaller, slower media. All the professionals were pissing and moaning about it in the beginning but have begun to accept it. Laserdiscs are uncompressed digital video. That is why they are so big. They also are in 4:2:2 colorspace, which would benefit from MJPEG compression, not DV (or MPEG which is worse than DV). I miss MJPEG. If you truly want to archive your Laserdiscs, then capture in MJPEG. Later you can screw it all up by compressing it to MPEG2 for DVD viewing.