Raw MTS files so good, and so small

[Priapism]

How can a raw, Blu-Ray High Definition "best of the best" MTS file, straight off the High Def camcorder look *so good* and be *such* a relatively small file size ....

Yet anytime we want to do anything with the damn file, it ends up looking like crap?

Want to put it online? Prepare for HOURS of struggling with encoding settings in numerous programs!

Want to put it onto a DVD? Get ready for the same! Oh - and SORRY! Adobe Premiere, the $800 program can't recreate your original MTS quality, no matter how many hours you spend trying!

Want to make a BluRay? No, you cant just put the files on the disk and hand it to a friend, sorry!

Is it just me or is there something wrong with this picture?

We've got the "finished product" right in our hand.

Right off the camera.

Here it is - a set of 10 MTS files that look crystal clear and are taking up almost no space.

So ... stitch the clips together and you've got an amazing, beautiful video in a nice small size!

But noooooooo oo.. I've got to bust out 5 different programs, and spend hours struggling with 63 settings for bitrate and deinterlacing and literally invest a week of my time sweating over tons of mediocre, failed conversions.

Does someone want to get rich? Simplify the process without ruining the quality.

1) Get my MTS files online, in the best possible quality, without making me think.
2) Get my MTS files on a standard DVD, in the best possible quality, without making me think.
3) Get my MTS files onto a BluRay disc, in *original* MTS quality, without making me think.

The only thinking involved here should be the Authoring process - making menus, being creative, etc.

When did this industry go from handing someone a VHS camcorder that you just pop into a VHS player, to mass producing HD Video Cameras that only a PHD in Video Editing can make use of?

[poisondeathray]

1) Get my MTS files online, in the best possible quality, without making me think.

Upload the clips to a file hosting site, eg. megaupload, mediafire, rapidshare, many others. Original quality. Original size. No video bitrate limitations . No time wasted re-encoding. No thinking

2) Get my MTS files on a standard DVD, in the best possible quality, without making me think.

Since this involves re-encoding, and there will be no concensus on "best quality" which is subjective.

Want to make a BluRay? No, you cant just put the files on the disk and hand it to a friend, sorry!
3) Get my MTS files onto a BluRay disc, in *original* MTS quality, without making me think.

Multiavchd. Original clips & quality. You can even put it on DVD5/9 media instead of BD-R 25/50 if your standalone player supports AVCHD. Barely any thinking

[Priapism]

Thanks. First one: uploading a file to mediashare does not enable it for streaming by others. Only downloading. Correct? Number 1 on my list was just for the "best possible" quality in a streaming high definition online video format.

-P-

[creamyhorror]

Heh, the frustration is exactly what's driven so many developers to produce all the tools you mention. It's commercial companies that either haven't fully got it right (Premiere) or price their products out of the market.

If you want easy, you have to settle for mediocre quality - that's about it at this point in time. (But I'd be happy to be proven wrong!)


edit: Actually, thinking about it, it's the responsibility of the camera manufacturer to include decent conversion tools. Doesn't yours?

[poisondeathray]

Thanks. First one: uploading a file to mediashare does not enable it for streaming by others. Only downloading. Correct? Number 1 on my list was just for the "best possible" quality in a streaming high definition online video format.

-P-

Yep, not streaming. Your expectations are unrealistic.

If you encode it to a flash format compatible for streaming:

1) You lose some quality at least when re-encoding, and usually lots when encoding for a "flash suitable bitrate" (see #2)

2) You can only HTTP stream low bitrate material successfully. The flash player and protocol has significant overhead on top of HTTP protocol. A video that plays smooth locally can play choppy when fed through a flash player (it's just not optimized very well) . Besides, how many people have fibre connections to the home? Forget about coming even close to original quality. 20Mbps connection? Plus overhead? 30Mbps connection... You also need a host, not very many free ones that offer >2Mb/s. You can pay for a buffered rtsp host but very expen$ive

If you were really a fan of quality, you wouldn't subject your end users to sh!tty youtube bitrates or similar sites. You'd either find a better host (usually $), or upload the original clips (free hosting sites available).

So maybe you can develop an optimized new flash protocol and player, and optimize http protocol. Sell it to Google and you'd be rich

[Priapism]

your expectations are unrealistic

Not really. What I asked for with online streaming was "best possible" quality.

Watch this in HD mode - and mute the sound.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxRdgDTs_E0

For added fun, do full screen mode too.

That's one of my MTS files uploaded raw...

Pretty amazing quality I think.

Show me how to get video of this quality onto youtube without the sound issues, and minor visual hesitations - and my expectations are met.

-P-

[creamyhorror]

That's one of my MTS files uploaded raw...

Pretty amazing quality I think.

Show me how to get video of this quality onto youtube without the sound issues, and minor visual hesitations - and my expectations are met.

Dude, we've been through this. This video looks good because the bitrate is close to double due to the slowed-down framerate. If you uploaded a clip that Youtube didn't choke on, the video would certainly look worse.

edit: in case it wasn't clear, this video looks better because Youtube screwed up the framerate

[Priapism]

I know why it looks good already.

You should start a site that doesnt have a framerate max.

Or at least assumes that people are on a high speed connection.

All the HD videos seem to load way ahead of time for me. No problem of they were a bit bigger.

Dont waste time with trying to re-encode the videos for the lowest common denominator.

Kick it up a notch from YouTube's max.

Charge $5 a year for membership and people can share their videos in high def.

And actually have good quality video that impresses others.

You'd be wealthy overnight.

[creamyhorror]

Sure, it's a good idea, but there are a host of technical issues and tradeoffs to consider.

Really, I'd be happy if Youtube/other video sites simply:

1) Increased its bitrate limit periodically. 3000bps would allow for very nice quality at 720p, and even 2500Kbps would provide a marked improvement.

2) Provided a client-side validation program that would test videos for compliance and mark them for no-reencoding. Instantly a big boost in quality for those who bother to encode properly.

These two things alone would make Youtube very good for years to come.

[poisondeathray]

Charge $5 a year for membership and people can share their videos in high def.

And actually have good quality video that impresses others.

You'd be wealthy overnight.

LOL

Guys, do you have any idea how much bandwidth costs? Server farms and , cooling costs etc...? Inital capital outlay is large, and ongoing maintenance costs are too...

Guess how well youtube is doing financially? ...

[johns0]

Isp's like rogers and shaw would cringe thinking of the increased bandwidth due to the increased bitrates.

[poisondeathray]

Isp's like rogers and shaw would cringe thinking of the increased bandwidth due to the increased bitrates.

I hear you! We are screwed in Canada.

At least you can get FiOS in some parts of the USA; in Japan 100/100 is common for ISP service

[johns0]

Sigbritt Löthberg's home has been supplied with a blistering 40 Gigabits per second connection.

Wish i had that speed.She is the mother of Swedish internet legend Peter Löthberg who arranged the connection.A full blu-ray d/l in 10 seconds.