VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2
1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 58
Thread
  1. Guys,

    I am in urgent need of new camcorder (planned trip soon).

    After having Sony DCR-PC9 for 8 years, I am tired of de-interlacing and the corresponding blur.
    Yes, yes I know and I tried the techniques described at 100fps.com. It takes time however.
    I can see how better are my 1280x720 clips from the still camera, and how easier it is to deal with them.

    Recently I started looking what are the advances with the camcorders. I don't know who needs a 240Gb HDD to record 40 hours of video, I would be happy to have 2-3 hours per trip. So I am 100% convinced that my next camera will be flash memory based. (I am tired also of the tapes).
    Yes the resolutions nowadays are higher but to my surprise not many camcorders in my price range offer 1080p. Instead the nasty interlaced mode is still there.
    Moreover - otherwise nice Sony models (prized for their shake reduction for example) don't even offer 720p, only 1080i. Not only that it is interlaced but it is not declared on their advertisements, you should dig deeply into the reviews to find it. Or maybe I am just naive and I should simply accept any claim for FULL HD to be 1080i unless it is clearly written 1080p ? Anyway. That's the easy part.

    The questions which bother me are:

    1. How do you guys deal with 1080i. Do you just encode in interlaced mode ?
    I've already ordered the new mediatank C-200, it must be capable of de-interlacing on the fly.

    2. Direct question to recommend a camcorder.
    in order of importance:
    - flash mem based
    - price range 700-1200 USD
    - still pictures with at least 6-8 Mpix
    - good shake reduction
    - low noise / good performance at low light
    - to have threads for filters before the lens
    - touch screen
    - IR mode
    ...
    ...
    - Optical zoom of more than 10x


    I like VERY much the feature of Panasonics to pre-buffer 3 seconds so that you never miss an interesting scene. But is that implemented anywhere else besides Panasonics ?

    Also stuff like:
    - time lapse (you leave the camera to take one frame per second of this booming flower, rotating starry sky)
    - being able to shoot at higher frame-rates
    is very appealing but somehow it always comes with otherwise not good cameras (or too expensive on the other end)

    I absolutely don't care about any editing on camera, sepia, B/W modes and shit like that. I guess none of us in this forum cares

    Thank you very much for the answers ! My absolute deadline is to have the new camcorder in my hands on October 6th. Thank you !
    Best wishes,
    UP
    Quote Quote  
  2. Mod Neophyte Super Moderator redwudz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    USA
    Search Comp PM
    I just got a JVC HD300 and I'm happy with it. Does 1920 x 1080/60P and outputs .mts files. Low light sensitivity is not so good, but about the same as other HD cameras. It has a 60GB HDD. Also a micro SD slot and a 20X optical zoom. It does have a threaded lens for filters. I decided against a SD card camera as the cards would end up being very expensive for 60GB worth. The camera was about $487US.(Abe's of Maine) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830145114&cm_re=jvc_hd_camcorder...-114-_-Product
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member 2Bdecided's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Search Comp PM
    Correct deinterlacing doesn't blur anything. Sounds like you're not doing it properly. 100fps.com is 10 years out of date. Good deinterlacing is slow though - mcbob or tgmc in AVIsynth. Better to start with progressive if you can (but a good interlaced camcorder will give better results than a bad progressive one).

    No offence, but your previous camcorder is going to look like a toy compared to a proper modern HD camcorder.


    Your feature list is ambitious - no consumer HD camcorders are really good in low light - the "best" ones are "slightly less bad" than the others, but laughable compared with professional machines.


    Beware of the cheap pistol grip solid state "HD" camcorders - they have the pixel count to be "HD" - but good luck finding any fine picture details in their output!

    You can nearly always find sample footage from any camcorder on the net - take a look at the "raw" results before you buy. Check your PC is powerful enough to edit the "raw" footage too.

    Hope this helps.

    Cheers,
    David.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Thank you guys!

    Frankly, pointing how outdated I am, doesn't help too much.
    We all know that deinterlacing causes degradation of quality, which manifests either as blur or remaining lines.
    Just an example of what people say in one other forum:

    Mystery Keeper
    In video processing there is no universal solution. In one video I used both TempGaussMC_beta1 and nMCBob on different frames.

    Comatose
    Try the ones generally regarded as being best and see which one you like best.

    Blue_MiSfit
    But it's really impossible to say which one is the "highest quality". It's very source dependent!
    Best wishes,
    UP
    Quote Quote  
  5. If you want to post video online you want progressive video. Although, 1080i usually doesn't look too bad if you throw out one field (discard field deinterlace) and resize down to 960x540 or less.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Originally Posted by Umen Pich
    We all know that deinterlacing causes degradation of quality, which manifests either as blur or remaining lines.
    Since interlaced video is deinterlaced during playback on progressive screens, you'd see those same artifacts while watching. Using a proper deinterlacer (like tempgaussmc or mcbob as mentioned by 2Bdecided, though those are ridiculously slow) during encoding, OTOH, will give you a stream that has minimal blur and virtually no combing/lines (although you may decide to throw away half the temporal resolution). It'll look better than direct playback of interlaced video for years to come - until playback deinterlacing becomes ridiculously advanced, anyway.

    For archiving, of course, you should keep the original interlaced clips.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by redwudz
    I just got a JVC HD300 and I'm happy with it. Does 1920 x 1080/60P and outputs .mts files.
    From what I understand the HD300 is AVCHD and can use UXP mode for 24Mb/s 1920x1080i. AVCHD "Full HD" means 1920x1080i at 60 fields per sec, not 60p. Correct me if I'm wrong.

    When HDTV sets say "Full HD" they usually mean it has a 1920x1080p display panel but if 1920x1080 progressive input is accepted at all, it is usually limited to 23.976 fps (film rate) over HDMI.
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  8. The Sanyo Xacti FH1 shoots 1920x1080p60. It's a low end camcorder though and doesn't have optical image stabilization. I don't think it even has digital image stabilization. Sample video:
    http://88.191.20.67/video/akiba/SANYO_HD2000_1920x1080_60fps.zip
    Quote Quote  
  9. Mod Neophyte Super Moderator redwudz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by edDV
    Originally Posted by redwudz
    I just got a JVC HD300 and I'm happy with it. Does 1920 x 1080/60P and outputs .mts files.
    From what I understand the HD300 is AVCHD and can use UXP mode for 24Mb/s 1920x1080i. AVCHD "Full HD" means 1920x1080i at 60 fields per sec, not 60p. Correct me if I'm wrong.

    When HDTV sets say "Full HD" they usually mean it has a 1920x1080p display panel but if 1920x1080 progressive input is accepted at all, it is usually limited to 23.976 fps (film rate) over HDMI.
    That info was from NewEgg. The manual says 1080/60i, MPEG-4 AVCH/H.264, Dolby Digital (2ch). I use the XP 17Mb/s mode.
    Quote Quote  
  10. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by redwudz
    Originally Posted by edDV
    Originally Posted by redwudz
    I just got a JVC HD300 and I'm happy with it. Does 1920 x 1080/60P and outputs .mts files.
    From what I understand the HD300 is AVCHD and can use UXP mode for 24Mb/s 1920x1080i. AVCHD "Full HD" means 1920x1080i at 60 fields per sec, not 60p. Correct me if I'm wrong.

    When HDTV sets say "Full HD" they usually mean it has a 1920x1080p display panel but if 1920x1080 progressive input is accepted at all, it is usually limited to 23.976 fps (film rate) over HDMI.
    That info was from NewEgg. The manual says 1080/60i, MPEG-4 AVCH/H.264, Dolby Digital (2ch). I use the XP 17Mb/s mode.
    I wish there was a consumer level 1920x1080p 60 fps capable camcorder. It would chew up flash RAM or HDD fast though (double data rate 48Mb/s for equivalent quality). JVC has the $3500 GY-HM100U that will do 1280x720p at 59.94 fps with 35Mb/s MPeg2.
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  11. From the manual of Canon HF S10:

    Recordings made with the PF24, PF30 frame rate are converted and recorded on the memory as 60i ???

    Than what happens if I copy the contents of that memory ?
    It will remain 60i ? What's the catch here ? I am confused.
    Best wishes,
    UP
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Umen Pich
    From the manual of Canon HF S10:

    Recordings made with the PF24, PF30 frame rate are converted and recorded on the memory as 60i ???

    Than what happens if I copy the contents of that memory ?
    It will remain 60i ? What's the catch here ? I am confused.
    The AVCHD standard is based on 1080i 29.97 fps same as all North American interlace television. 24p (23.976 actually) is recorded with extra pad fields to extend the frame rate to 29.97 frames per second or 59.94 fields per second. The process is called telecine. To convert the recorded interlaced video back to 23.976p, one must remove the pad fields by a process called inverse telecine (IVTC).

    Note that shooting 24p requires camera stabilization and other special camera handling techniques. It is not recommended for hand held camcorders usless you can develop a very steady hand. By contrast, shooting 1080i mode records motion at 59.94 fields per second. This gives much smoother motion. Current HDTV sets create a frame from each field for a 59.94p viewing experience. Higher end HDTV sets extend frame rate to 120 fps ( 119.88 ) or 240 fps (239.76) by repeating or interpolating intermediate frames.

    While 1080i presents some issues for internet distribution or extreme compression, a proper computer software player (e.g. PowerDVD) will deinterlace 1080i to 1080p for computer screen display without unexceptable motion blur.

    Alternately, 1080i/29.97 can be converted to 1280x720p/59.94 with very little loss and full motion fidelity. Problem is most computer peeps cheap out on bitrate and convert instead to 1280x720p/29.97 which is noticably more jerky for motion.
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  13. Member 2Bdecided's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Umen Pich
    We all know that deinterlacing causes degradation of quality, which manifests either as blur or remaining lines.
    No it doesn't - where it fails, it manifests itself as artefacts, or residual "bobbing" - and both of these, if they ever happen on your footage, are almost invisible after conversion to 1280x720p60.

    You get "blur" if you blend fields, and "remaining lines" if you use a poor motion adaptive deinterlacer. These techniques are 10-20 years out of date.

    Just an example of what people say in one other forum:

    Mystery Keeper
    In video processing there is no universal solution. In one video I used both TempGaussMC_beta1 and nMCBob on different frames.
    That's pretty anal!

    Comatose
    Try the ones generally regarded as being best and see which one you like best.

    Blue_MiSfit
    But it's really impossible to say which one is the "highest quality". It's very source dependent!
    Well, indeed - perfect deinterlacing is impossible. But I bet you're quoting from doom9.org where saying what's "best" is against the forum rules. Most people think that, if you find the inherent denoising acceptable, then tgmc is best.

    Cheers,
    David.
    Quote Quote  
  14. edDV,
    thanks for that explanation, but I still cannot get the idea - how 30fps progressive is being recorded on media as 60i
    and what do I get eventually in that case ?
    Best wishes,
    UP
    Quote Quote  
  15. Originally Posted by Umen Pich
    but I still cannot get the idea - how 30fps progressive is being recorded on media as 60i
    and what do I get eventually in that case ?
    Canon uses a 30i wrapper

    Here I use the term 30i instead of 60i, but it means the same thing, 30 frames per second or 60 fields per second

    The 24p or 30p content is wrapped in a 30i container. So to many programs, it will "look" interlaced because of the signalling, even though the content is progressive. You need special extraction techniques or IVTC for 24p to get back the progressive content e.g. through avisynth, but some editors provide this functionality for 30p in 30i, but none perform the 24p in 30i extraction properly
    Quote Quote  
  16. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Umen Pich
    edDV,
    thanks for that explanation, but I still cannot get the idea - how 30fps progressive is being recorded on media as 60i
    and what do I get eventually in that case ?
    First 29.97i, 30i, 59.94i and 60i all mean the same thing for North American digital video. Confusing huh?

    29.97i = traditional and correct frame rate notation. The frame rate is a legacy relec of analog NTSC. Two fields recorded 1/59.94th second apart are combined to make an interlace frame. Since odd and even lines were recorded at different points in time, a frame grab will show line separation during motion. This isn't a problem for interlace TV sets which display fields sequentally. Digital TV sets deinterlace 29.97i to 59.94p displaying a progressive sequence. Quality of deinterlace varies. Computer displays are progressive. They can show the raw frames with line separation or a deinterlaced 59.94p sequence created by a software player or display card hardware.

    59.94i = indicates field rate.

    30i = rounded up lazy frame rate notation.

    60i = rounded up lazy field rate notation.

    I explained 23.976p (aka 24p) telecine above. 29.97p (aka 30p) means both fields in the interlace frame were recorded at the same instant in time instead of 1/59.94 sec apart. This means a frame grab will show both fields in alignment even during motion. Disadvantage is motion is sampled at half the rate. 30p has advantage for direct computer display or web streaming at a 30p rate. It won't look as good for HDTV display and may show artifacts on "120 Hz." or "240 Hz" premium HDTV sets since they will assume the video is 29.97i.
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  17. Essentially, when a frame is encoded interlaced, the two fields are separated and each is compressed separately inside the file. When it's decompressed the two fields are decoded, woven together into a single frame again, and handed to the editor.

    An 720x480 interlaced frame with a red 1 in one field and are green 2 in the other:


    Separated into two 720x240 fields:




    There is no reason a progressive frame can't be encoded as if it is interlaced. It's just slightly less efficient. And with YV12 video the colors are little less sharp along the vertical axis.
    Quote Quote  
  18. Originally Posted by jagabo
    The Sanyo Xacti FH1 shoots 1920x1080p60. It's a low end camcorder though and doesn't have optical image stabilization. I don't think it even has digital image stabilization. Sample video:
    http://88.191.20.67/video/akiba/SANYO_HD2000_1920x1080_60fps.zip
    This is what I was planning on buying, I'm gonna download that clip later, but I'm a bit afraid that this is one of those low-end pistol grips I had checked a comparison on youtube and the progressive scan obviously had its advantages especially on motion but it didnt have the best detail of the lot, there was a Canon with better detail but it was interlaced... It's a bit choosing the lesser evil. Or waiting untill Canon comes out with e progressive cam.
    Quote Quote  
  19. Originally Posted by raffie
    Originally Posted by jagabo
    Sanyo Xacti FH1
    I'm a bit afraid that this is one of those low-end pistol grips
    The older Xacti's were pistol grip but this model is the traditional compact camcorder form factor.

    Quote Quote  
  20. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    The tradeoffs for the Sanyo Xacti VPC-FH1 are bit-rate and "non-standard" h.264 (not AVCHD).

    The advantage is 60fps progressive 1920x1080 motion smoothness but bit rates are very low.

    Sanyo Xacti VPC-FH1
    1920x1080p/59.94fps 24 Mb/s
    1920x1080p/29.97fps 12 Mb/s
    1920x1080i/29.97fps 16 Mb/s

    Compare this to

    AVCHD-UXP
    1920x1080i/29.97fps 24 Mb/s

    HDV (MPeg2)
    1440x1080i/29.97fps 25 Mb/s
    1440x1080p/29.97fps 25 Mb/s
    1440x1080p/23.97fps 20 Mb/s (equivalent after pad fields removed)

    So as you can see, HDV 1080i has ~33% more bit rate per pixel vs. AVCHD-UXP which has 50% more bit rate per pixel vs. the FH1 (1080i). The 1080i AVCHD UXP mode has 100% more bit rate per pixel vs. the FH1 in 60p mode.

    IMO 1920x1080 60p AVC needs at least 35-48 Mb/s to hold quality.

    It seems to me that the Xacti VPC-FH1 would be ideal at 1280x720p 60fps at 24 Mb/s but for some reason it lacks this mode.

    http://sanyo.com/xacti/english/products/vpc_fh1/videos.html
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  21. The sample I linked to was the only 1920x1080p60 sample I was able to find. It's not great for testing bitrate issues since it's mostly still shots. There are lots of Youtube samples but there's no way of telling which problems might be from the camcorder and which are from Youtube. The FH1 does appear to blow out bright highlights. Can't tell about low light performance and noise. The high speed modes look like fun. Hopefully this portends better things to come...
    Quote Quote  
  22. The whole 'FULL HD' being plastered on almost every consumer HD camcorder is really irritating to me as it contradicts the standards on TV's - HD Ready : 720p/1080i, FULL HD : 1080p. FULL HD camcorder : 1080i - rubbish! I have spoken to panasonic representatives about this before and they just looked at me like I was a nit picking trouble maker!

    That aside I have been using a Canon HV20 personally for a few years with the results going on DVD and online and I have never has a problem with interlacing lines, I always deinterlace using adobe media encoder when I export my edits and it really has worked well for me. When I export HD it is always at 1280x720, not 1080p but the results are great. I have also used the Sony HVR-Z1 which again is HDV working at 1080i, no probs.

    I recently bought a panasonic DMC-GH1 which is a DSLR (technically not really but looks and works like one) it shoots great stills and has a 720p at 50fps mode, I absolutely love this camera and the fact you can shoot progressive hd video and change the lens - nice fast primes for low light...

    Anyway hope that helps
    Adam

    I'm a spammer
    Quote Quote  
  23. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by inspirevideo
    The whole 'FULL HD' being plastered on almost every consumer HD camcorder is really irritating to me as it contradicts the standards on TV's - HD Ready : 720p/1080i, FULL HD : 1080p. FULL HD camcorder : 1080i - rubbish! I have spoken to panasonic representatives about this before and they just looked at me like I was a nit picking trouble maker!
    Manufacturers would say "Full HD" means 1920x1080, nothing more.

    Since LCD and Plasma TV sets are also progressive they make a deal out of 1080p but the only native 1080p source is a Blu-Ray player operating at 24p. All other inputs other than a computer desktop are processed (IVTC, deinterlaced and/or resized).

    The pros know that bit rate is more important for picture quality than resolution.

    From a camcorder designers point of view, even 1920x1080i is a stretch that seldom improves picture quality unless the optics, codec and bit rate are up to the task. Consumers quickly suffer buyers remorse when they discover the cost of level 4+ flash media needed to support 24Mb/s AVCHD UXP mode. 1920x1080p 60fps would need 35-48Mb/s to get equivalent compression quality and that write rate is marginal for consumer level flash ram. Pro flash cards (e.g. P2) use parallel flash ram architecture to get higher sustained bit rate.

    Let's face it 60fps progressive has a strong benefit for hand held, high action consumer video. On the other hand 1920x1080 is overkill given consumer optics, low light penalty from smaller pixels and prohibitive flash ram cost.

    An ideal progressive consumer camcorder resolution would be between 1280x720p and 1366x768p. A higher end possibility might be 1440x1080p but that would require 70% more bit rate for equivalent compression rate. 1280x720p at 60 fps would be ideal for low light and/or high action recording at about 24 Mb/s AVC. An economy mode would allow 1280x720p 30fps at 12 Mb/s.

    As flash ram cost comes down and consumer camcorder optics improve, a 1920x1080p 60fps model operating at Blu-Ray max 36-54Mb/s may be appropriate in the future.


    Originally Posted by inspirevideo
    That aside I have been using a Canon HV20 personally for a few years with the results going on DVD and online and I have never has a problem with interlacing lines, I always deinterlace using adobe media encoder when I export my edits and it really has worked well for me. When I export HD it is always at 1280x720, not 1080p but the results are great. I have also used the Sony HVR-Z1 which again is HDV working at 1080i, no probs.

    I recently bought a panasonic DMC-GH1 which is a DSLR (technically not really but looks and works like one) it shoots great stills and has a 720p at 50fps mode, I absolutely love this camera and the fact you can shoot progressive hd video and change the lens - nice fast primes for low light...
    I've also been using a Sony HVR-Z1U for years and a Canon HV20 for home/travel. I agree they are a good current optimization but if I had the budget, I'd get one of the XDCAM-EX cams.

    I'm considering a Canon 5d Mk2 for stills and "B roll" video.
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  24. Originally Posted by jagabo
    Originally Posted by raffie
    Originally Posted by jagabo
    Sanyo Xacti FH1
    I'm a bit afraid that this is one of those low-end pistol grips
    The older Xacti's were pistol grip but this model is the traditional compact camcorder form factor.

    BTW guys, I bought this exact camcorder, and it's looking pretty good to me, I'm happy with it!
    I uploaded a little 60p sample clip that I shot today, let's see what you all think.
    http://www.megaupload.com/?d=4L3QK27E

    Be advised tho if you want full motion playback, you'll need a dual core 3.0ghz minimum!
    Quote Quote  
  25. That's pretty impressive for a such an inexpensive camcorder. How does it do in low light conditions?
    Quote Quote  
  26. Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by raffie
    Originally Posted by jagabo
    Originally Posted by raffie
    Originally Posted by jagabo
    Sanyo Xacti FH1
    I'm a bit afraid that this is one of those low-end pistol grips
    The older Xacti's were pistol grip but this model is the traditional compact camcorder form factor.

    BTW guys, I bought this exact camcorder, and it's looking pretty good to me, I'm happy with it!
    I uploaded a little 60p sample clip that I shot today, let's see what you all think.
    http://www.megaupload.com/?d=4L3QK27E

    Be advised tho if you want full motion playback, you'll need a dual core 3.0ghz minimum!
    It has gotten some decent reviews regarding image quality and low light performance. But it has a major limitation; it doesn't support an external mic.
    Quote Quote  
  27. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    The bit rate is too low for quality 1920x1080p at 60 fps. They should offer a 1280x720p 60fps mode but they don't.
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  28. Originally Posted by jagabo
    That's pretty impressive for a such an inexpensive camcorder. How does it do in low light conditions?
    Not as well, but I understand it's the same for most if not all HiDef camcorders.

    Originally Posted by edDV
    The bit rate is too low for quality 1920x1080p at 60 fps. They should offer a 1280x720p 60fps mode but they don't.
    You still think so after seeing the clip? I can't say I see any sort of artefacting and it all looks pretty sharp to me, even in highly detailled shots as the subject I filmed.

    BTW, read your comparison and I have some thoughts on that:
    - You cannot ever compare a MPEG-2 bitrate with a H.264 bitrate. H.264 is a inter-frame compressor (and advanced one at that) whilst MPEG-2 isnt, I'm sure you know this so I'm not really sure why you would compare them.
    - H.264 being a interframe compressor, this means that doubling the framerate does not automatically mean you need to double the bitrate. Because for a given videoclip, the amount of motion is a constant, wether there are 25 or 250 frames per second. You could say, the higher the framerate, the more effective a inter-frame compressor works.
    Quote Quote  
  29. Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Spain
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by raffie
    You cannot ever compare a MPEG-2 bitrate with a H.264 bitrate. H.264 is a inter-frame compressor (and advanced one at that) whilst MPEG-2 isnt
    Eh? MPEG-2 does do inter-frame compression. That's why you have GOPs, etc.
    Perhaps you are thinking of MJPEG?
    Quote Quote  
  30. D'oh xD I always thought MPEG-2 didnt do interframe, obviously it does , but still you cant compare diferent compressors' bitrates to one another.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads

Visit our sponsor! Try DVDFab and backup Blu-rays!