Editing SD video as MPEG-4/h.264 - a good idea?

[moxiecat]

I've been capturing our family's standard-definition video (VHS, Hi8, etc.) and editing it for awhile now. I have always captured as DV. I understand that the better-quality technique is uncompressed, but sometimes I pass along the files to family members for their own editing, and we've found that DV seems to be the most compatible with everyone's various editing programs.

I haven't upgraded my technical process in a long time, so I was poking around online to see if I should switch from DV to a different codec. I found that most of the larger video and photo transfer companies now supply "editable" video files in the MPEG-4 or h.264 format.

I'm confused. Isn't this format heavily compressed? Why would you want to edit it? These companies can't be offering these files because they are the best quality, right? One company even says that the bit rate they use for encoding is 2500 kbps--and that's YouTube's recommendation for just a straight upload! How could that possibly be a good bit rate for editing? Even if you raise the bit rate, this codec can't possibly be a better choice than DV or uncompressed--can it?

Would anyone on on this forum voluntarily use MPEG-4 for editing standard-definition video? Why or why not? And if not, why are so many of these companies offering this type of file?

Also...am I correct that continuing to use DV is likely my best option for providing video files to my family? As far as I can tell, it's the best compromise between good quality and widespread software compatibility--but please correct me if I'm wrong.

Thanks.

[smrpix]

Given the specifics of your situation, your wisest choice is to stay put (IMHO.)

Yes, you can make i-frame only h.264 files, but many of the containers for it won't hold pcm audio, so you're taking a quality hit there. Most editing systems will probably handle it, but some may not, and none will smart-render like dv.

HD is another ball of wax.

[LMotlow]

I found that most of the larger video and photo transfer companies now supply "editable" video files in the MPEG-4 or h.264 format.

I'm confused. Isn't this format heavily compressed? Why would you want to edit it? These companies can't be offering these files because they are the best quality, right?

Right. They're probably capitalizing on "h264" as a buzzword. MPEG4/h264 is a "final delivery" format, not designed for editing. A bad choice for VHS captures.

One company even says that the bit rate they use for encoding is 2500 kbps--and that's YouTube's recommendation for just a straight upload! How could that possibly be a good bit rate for editing? Even if you raise the bit rate, this codec can't possibly be a better choice than DV or uncompressed--can it?

No. It can't. Cross that outfit off your list.

Would anyone on on this forum voluntarily use MPEG-4 for editing standard-definition video? Why or why not? And if not, why are so many of these companies offering this type of file?

They're counting on average consumer ignorance about h264 "magic", which doesn't exist. Most members in this forum or other video tech forums would recommend strongly against it. BTW, h264 is used for standard definition BluRay/AVCHD, but it's still not for editing.

Also...am I correct that continuing to use DV is likely my best option for providing video files to my family? As far as I can tell, it's the best compromise between good quality and widespread software compatibility--but please correct me if I'm wrong.

Considering your requirements, skill level and available software, it's not the "best" choice but it's likely the best compromise.

2500 kbps/h264 for analog capture? No way.

[moxiecat]

As far as I can tell, the only reason a company would deliver MPEG-4 files is because they can fit a lot of video on a single DVD or flash drive that way. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with quality or providing even a decent file for editing.

I seriously hate when I see companies take advantage of consumers' ignorance!

[jagabo]

In theory, h.264 can be better than DV. You could use lossless (or very low loss), all I frame (or short GOP) encoding. That's not what these companies are delivering though.

[moxiecat]

Well, I definitely don't claim to know everything about h.264, but when I see 2500 kbps indicated as the bit rate, a flag goes up for me that maybe this is NOT careful encoding!

Considering your requirements, skill level and available software, it's not the "best" choice but it's likely the best compromise.

I'm curious, in your opinion, what would be the best codec for editing? I've been reading here for awhile, and the main options seem to be uncompressed or low-compressed in an AVI container (which is the "best", per DigitalFAQ.com), DV, or MPEG. Since I'm trying to update my "process" for editing--is there another file type or codec I should consider? I'm open to learning, but as I said, it has to be a file type that some of my more "basic-editing" relatives can work with too (e.g., the iMovie and Windows Movie Maker types)

[jagabo]

As LMotlow mentioned, DV is probably the best compromise for VHS and Hi8. But if you wanted to go all out you could capture YUV 4:2:2 (YUY2, UYVY, etc.) with a lossless codec. Your source files will be about 3x bigger. The improvements in your final edited/compressed video will only be marginal though.

[LMotlow]

As jagabo and many others will say, the whole idea behind lossless capture using lossless compressors like Huffyuv or Lagarith is to avoid re-encoding during processing as well as considerable time and effort in repairing the usual analog defects (spots, stains, dropouts, chroma noise/rainbows, tape and head switching noise, etc.), color and valid video levels correction. and applying special effects such as transitions (fades, dissolves, etc.), as well as keeping most of the original chroma information during capture. Analog defects captured to DV are more difficult to clean up, and other corrections such as color or noise reduction involve repeated lossy re-encoding of DV. It's common to capture to DV because of convenience or because a capture device for lossless capture isn't available -- but in that case DV can be decoded to lossles formats, processed as desired, and finally re-encoded for final output.

Simple cut/edit and quick transition work are possible without re-encoding DV. But work such as color and noise reduction will not be lossless unless DV is decoded to lossless for that work. All that sort of work properly belongs in the domain of lossless working files. It depends on your expectations, a learning curve, and your time. And how long you can resist shaking your fist at your 'puter before you get the results you want (Lol!).

[moxiecat]

Ha ha - thanks for the thorough explanation!

I know there are discussions regarding uncompressed AVIs versus DV in this and other VH forums; it has always just seemed to me that DV was the best option for US, and I am glad to read that there are VH regulars who don't think DV is absolutely terrible! (I do use processing hardware and good VCR, per the Restoration forum, for transferring VHS, so that does help avoid some of the potential post-processing issues.)

My main question for this thread was to clear up my confusion about why MPEG-4/H.264 is being so heavily advertised as a viable editing format by so many companies. It seemed absolutely wrong to me, but I wasn't sure if over the past couple years it had become the editing default for SD--and I just wasn't in the loop! Glad to hear that my belief that MPEG-4/H.264 is primarily a heavily-compressed delivery format, and not a good capture/edit format, is still true (barring jagabo's theory above, of course--which is probably NOT what these companies are doing anyway).

[newpball]

My main question for this thread was to clear up my confusion about why MPEG-4/H.264 is being so heavily advertised as a viable editing format by so many companies.

Actually do you have examples?

Because, well honestly, I have not seen any of that. I have seen lots of capture services that deliver to H.264 as a consumer end product but not specifically for editing purpose.

[moxiecat]

I really hate to give URLs because I don't want to give any of these companies free advertising! But here are three:

http://southtree.com/dataDVD
Scroll down, you'll see the big MPEG-4 text, right next to "Edit Ready". This company knows absolutely nothing about video transfer, as far as I can tell; they will also put up to 6 hours of video on a single DVD.

http://t2dvd.com/data_dvd.html
This entire page is devoted to providing the same service as above, "MP4 files for editing."

http://www.imemories.com/plans-pricing
Expand the Extras and Add-Ons area, you'll see the Portable Hard Drive Transport option, where there is a line of text:
*Includes the service of copying unedited source files (.MP4 format) to external hard drive.
Also on their FAQ page, a question is "Can you send me my full resolution digital masters on hard drive?" Part of the answer is "The file format will be MP4 for videos and JPG for photos. MP4 video files will be the unedited version of the full length video."
Granted, they do not specify that these files are for editing (they prefer you to edit online using their proprietary setup), but MP4 is the only option they offer if you want files of your videos.

I guess it isn't "so many companies" if I can only find three examples. But these are websites that have a heavy web presence--I kept running into them again and again with stuff I was looking up--so even though I knew better, I kept thinking, should I be using MPEG-4 for editing? And I wondered why "video professionals" would be promoting such a bad technique.

[jagabo]

barring jagabo's theory above, of course--which is probably NOT what these companies are doing anyway.

At 2500 kbps it's obviously not what they're doing. Standard definition, all I frame, lossless h.264 would usually have a bitrate much higher than DV.

[Cornucopia]

@moxiecat, there are a LOT of "pretenders" out there, some of whom are business owners. They know just enough to get by on a day-to-day basis with the standard workflow that they can understand, but do NOT fully understand the history & science behind all of it, so they don't really know WHY something might be better or worse for activities. IOW, "The Big Picture".
So, when encountering new workflows, changes in the industry, new challenges, they just "follow the pack" blindly.
Yet, they will try to appear as if they know much more technically than you do. Don't let that fool you.
Your original intuition was a very good one.

To summarize - for either SD or HD or 4k or whatever EDITING work, it is always better (and usually MUCH better) to work with Intra-frame only formats. Due to bandwidth, budget or other workflow constraints, there are times when it might make more sense to compromise with using a Short-GOP or worse a Long-GOP format. But for best quality & ease of editing, I-frame is really the way to go.
Also, you don't want to lose quality through compression (and re-compression), so there is a heirarchy to choice of codecs (in descending order):
1. Uncompressed & Losslessly-compressed
2. Slightly more compressed Lossy, but "visually lossless" formats (ProRes, DNxHD, Cineform, etc)
3. Slightly more compressed Lossy formats (DV/DVCam/DVCPro/DVCProHD, MJPEG, MPEG2-Intra, AVC-Intra)
4. All the rest (including the AVC/MP4 mentioned in the OP)

It's always about maintaining as high a quality as possible, for as long as possible, until (hopefully) the very end where the format is determined by the target playback requirements.

Scott