Converting DV to MPEG2

[dylanb2cm]

So I've just purchased a new Sony MiniDV camcorder. Just a basic model. I took some basic test footage then hooked the cmcorder straight to a 30" HD toshiba picture tube using the basic composite connection. I wasn't that impressised with the picture but I asssumed it had a lot to do with using the composite connection to run my signal. I then took the same footage and imported into IMOVIE. I added some music for fun. I then took the footage and converted to MPEG2 using ffmpegx then burnt it to DVD using toast 5. I then took the Disc and put it in my panasonic progressive scan DVD player hooked up with high quality component video cables. To make a long story short the picture looked almost the same if not a little worse. Any suggestions.

[Frobozz]

You might check how many pixels the CCD is in your camcorder compared to more expensive models. What you may be seeing is that your camcorder doesn't have as high a picture quality as you're wanting to view. I have one of the basic models of Canon camcorders and I bought my son one of Canon's next higher grades of camcorders. His picture looks much better.

[edDV]

How does it compare to a normal analog broadcast or cable channel?

Keep in mind that they are using $25-50,000 camcorders but have a more limited signal path.

[AntnyMD]

You set yourself up for disappointment by buying a basic model camcorder only to want to see great pictures on a high definition television.

You will be better off comparing the DV quality picture to the best looking DVD you own. The best DVDs I own are from the Criterion Collection. They use a relatively high bitrate and are generally remastered digitally from original sources after amazing restoration.

Take your camcorder and record some beautiful scenery .. a park setting, children playing ... perhaps and outdoor sports event. Take that footage and encode it to a DVD using a generous bitrate. Your opinion of the picture quality may change for the better.

[edDV]

The recorder part of any DV camcorder is excellent and can easily exceed DVD quality, but the camera section acquires the image and you get what you pay for. The low end camcorders have a small single CCD sensor and cheap optics. In the midrange ($750-1200) you have higher end larger single CCD or low end 3xCCD models. Both types generally come with higher end optics.

see http://www.camcorderinfo.com and http://www.dvspot.com/ for consumer reviews

A new class of affordable high quality consumer camcorders ($1100-1999) bridges the gap to Prosumer. Excellent examples are the Panasonic DV GS400/500 3CCD and the HDV Sony HDR-HC1 (new single CMOS imager)

Prosumer models ($2000-8000) are good enough for some cable networks to use and the trend is to HDV format (1440x1080). True Pro Broadcast models use essentially the same recording standard as consumer (DVCAM, DVCPro*) but vastly better camera/lens systems that sell in the $10,000-40,000 range and up. You would need a camcorder in that class to match a HDTV broadcast.

* HDTV formats are HDV, IMXHD, DVCProHD, HDCAM and HDCAM SR

[dylanb2cm]

I do realize that my camcorder is limited when comes to the CCD and optics. But shouldn't the picture be way better converting the DV to MPEG2 and watching on a progressive scan DVD player VS composite straight of the camera?

[vhelp]

Evening guys

I think that you are using too many paths in this process, according
to your steps.

I also think that during the processes that you used, somewhere in the
chain, the upscaling was not so effective for *your* given source.
read on..

The weak link in this chain of events is mostly from the fact that
your footage in interlace and not true progressive to begin with..
not to mention, Film (or, lessor fps) as in 24fps vs. your interlace's
29.970 fps, for instance.

Then, there is the other weak link, your method of taking the footage.

** Did you use a tripod, proper lighting, yada yada.. ?

Have you ever seen how Cinema/Hollywood make a movie ??

Look at how many times they retake a given scene many times. And
not just because the actor/ress did not say the lines properly or
anything. But during shooting, the lighting will change, and there
they are again, re-measuring it.

Then, there is the amount of bitrate you used for your low-budget test
scenario.. not to mention the MPEG encoder used. What's you skills
level and technique capability, etc. ??

In other words, its a lot of work to make, what in the end, professional
like results, in comparison to Commercial DVD's. (But then, even those
aren't all that good either)

.
.

- Here's a suggestion idea..

You know that test footage you took w/ your new Sony cam ? ..go and
retake it. But, with proper lighting and tripod.

Do something like this.. lay your cam down on a flat surface, and with
you as the star, walk across the room (within proper distant - focus/auto
anything/everything is another weak link, by the way) and try to do other
more interesting things (to bring life into the test footage) like turning
pages in a magazine, or acting like a weather announcer, are some "interesting"
examples.

And, might I give a suggestion in the MPEG encoding.. use a high bitrate
and CBR. Try CBR and 9000 bitrate encode to mpeg-2 and then author to a
dvd disk as you usually do. Then, re-do the scenario you laid out above.
I think you might see a small (if not, better ) difference.

Aaahhh, but you'll probably not even do this. Oh well. It was worth at
least posting

.
.

There are also other factors that might have tainted your results, but
I won't get into those here. Anyways.

Consider the above in your next research. Good luck.

-vhelp 3846

[edDV]

I do realize that my camcorder is limited when comes to the CCD and optics. But shouldn't the picture be way better converting the DV to MPEG2 and watching on a progressive scan DVD player VS composite straight of the camera?

Try the S-Video connection from the camcorder to the 30" HD Toshiba picture tube TV. That will eliminate the Y/C crosstalk issues of NTSC over composite. TV should be in interlace mode but see how the TV progressive 540p deinterlacer compares. That is your reference picture.

A TV set like that one will digitize the S-Video input and upconvert it to 1080i/29.97. Upscale will not enhance the video but will eliminate the visible scan lines on the CRT. The shadow mask of that TV will limit actual displayed resolution to about 800x600.

If you make a DVD, the normal path would be capture (transfer) over IEEE-1394 to a 480i DV file on the HDD. Edit it as you see fit, then encode it to interlaced MPeg2 at high bitrate and play it in your DVD player. Your DVD player will see it as interlaced 480i and process it as 480i to the TV. If the TV is expecting 480i, it will process it in the same way it did over S-Video. The DVD MPeg2 encoding will be more compressed than the direct connection, but best encoding technique will result in a similar picture to the S-Video representation.

If the signal is deinterlaced, there is ample opportunity to make it look worse than the interlaced S-Video. There are 3 places the deinterlace can take place.

1. While encoding to MPeg2 -- This will screw it up the most because software deinterlace techniques (e.g. field drop, blend, bob, weave, mean ...) are the most primative and all put various forms of motion or resolution artifacts into the picture.

2. In the DVD player -- Progressive DVD players vary widely in the sophistication of their deinterlacer. The best ones will analyze the motion in each frame and adaptively adjust portions of the image as field, bob and/or weave. Unless you bought a top of the line player with the latest chipsets, you have something less.

3. In the TV -- Like the DVD player, deinterlacer quality varies.

Play with all the modes and see which you like, but 480i should look the best for a DV camcorder DVD.

[dylanb2cm]

Thanks for all the suggestions. Just want to clarify on a couple of points. Am I to understand that DV records in Interlace? This being true a progressive scan DVD player won't benefit me? Also what is a good bit rate to use when using ffmpegx?

[edDV]

Thanks for all the suggestions. Just want to clarify on a couple of points. Am I to understand that DV records in Interlace? This being true a progressive scan DVD player won't benefit me? Also what is a good bit rate to use when using ffmpegx?

Yes DV and normal TV is interlaced. There are some true progressive camcorders but they still telecine out to 29.97 fps. Unless you have a Panasonic AG-DVX100 or above, your camcorder is straight interlace just like your 6 oclock TV news.

Read this. http://www.adamwilt.com/24p/

Your progressive player will play interlace or progressive DVD. Your DV camcorder material will look best if you keep it interlace and use high bitrates ~8100-9500 Mb/s at 720x480/576.

If you decide to go the AG-DVX100 24p route, you can forget handholding the camera and doing traditional pans and zooms. You would need a tripod, or develop steady cam skills. Best to go to film school to learn these techniques.

[dylanb2cm]

If I use a bitrate of 9500 Mb/s what will this give me in terms of recording time on a single layer DVD?

[edDV]

If I use a bitrate of 9500 Mb/s what will this give me in terms of recording time on a single layer DVD?

See https://www.videohelp.com/calc

About 1hr, 2 min.

[dylanb2cm]

thank you.