Minimizing quality loss?

[xtreme1699]

Hey all!

Apologies if this is in the wrong place.
I have some DV footage exported from Mini DV Tape to my Mac Pro via a Panasonic NV-DV10000 and i want to convert it to a file format with little to no quality loss. Now, its my understanding if i want absolutely no loss in quality i should leave the raw file as it is (.DV) however 40-80GB is a little too big for my needs and so im hoping to maintain the full quality whilst being able to deal with a smaller file, is this possible?

So far im not succeeding. I've tried some known formats like MP4, AVI, etc however all of them appear to have some loss in quality.

If it helps, here is my proccess;

Import tape via iMovie from Panasonic NV-DV10000
Export project to MP4 file, selecting 'Large' as the output file option
(^ Steps used for MP4)

Import .DV file to iSkySoft iMedia converter
Select desired format (AVI in this case)

Thats literally it! iMovie then produces a file thats about 700MB-1GB in size however the loss in quality is very noticeable, iSkysoft iMedia will produce a slightly larger file when trying AVI but the loss is the same.

Any information is appreciated!

Admittedly, i am new at this so please excuse me if im missing something obvious! :P

[newpball]

Now, its my understanding if i want absolutely no loss in quality i should leave the raw file as it is (.DV) however 40-80GB is a little too big for my needs and so im hoping to maintain the full quality whilst being able to deal with a smaller file, is this possible?

No.

You say 40-80GB is to large for your needs, may I ask what are your needs with this video?

[pippas]

If you transfer the MiniDV tape files to the computer via Firewire (IEEE1394), that is a direct transfer of the original files, with absolutely no quality loss. DV files take up about 13GB per hour.

There's no advantage in copying to any other format which produces larger files than that......

[LigH.de]

It is probably possible to achieve "no noticable loss" with some remarkable compression. But "no measurable loss" means no recompression at all, optimally.

I'd recommend to test x264 with CRF 12 for whether you are able to notice any loss; it is quite certain to achieve "visual transparency". If you expect more compression and would allow a little more risk for little quality loss, you may go up to CRF 15.

[_Al_]

Encoding always brings down quality. The trick is to find that is just about not that pretty much noticeable or almost not at all. And even that there will be a scene, with gradients, dark area, where you definitely would see the difference (mind you, just you, but nobody else, nobody else cares at all).

With DV avi, you can compress the video about 3-4x to not notice much the differences, it depends on your content, but using H.264 format preferably using x264 encoder. So your expectation to compress it more than 40x is too much.

Always keep your originals anyway.

[newpball]

The question is is the OP looking for a suitable deliverable format to copy the video to while obviously keeping the original source or is he interested in degrading the original source so he can save a couple of bytes and has a new original (tapes will not last forever!)?

IMHO, option one is a good one, option two is just dreadful.

[hello_hello]

The question is, why does newpball feel the need to quiz posters unnecessarily all the time instead of offering help?

Obviously "option two" is not what the original poster wants. He said so in his opening post. He already knows the only way not to lose any quality at all is to keep the original video. He clearly said so in his opening post. What he's obviously after is help finding the best possible compromise. Help reducing the file size as much as possible with as little noticeable quality loss as possible. Fortunately, he's being offered that despite the usual newpball interruptions.

[newpball]

People have fundamentally different views on quality.

DV is an editing format, it is also an archiving format (if it was recorded as such). Tape alone is not a good archiving strategy. So if someone asks for help I think I help him more by reminding him to preserve what he got instead of rushing in and offering him all kind of quality reducing compression options.

That is my perspective. Others may have a different perspective, but that's what you get on a forum, answers from people with different opinions and perspectives!

[_Al_]

But there are limits, you cannot ram every thread about what should be done, meaning not converting at all especially dealing with DV avi. You have to convert to be sure all devices can play it and explain how. You should add that to keep originals is the idea as well. But you just answer something about keep the quality, keep the quality, keep the quality, basically not answering at all. It is very stupid especially in this thread. On the top of that you perhaps never had to deal with DV avi. If you ever had, and using best DV camcorders there were, then you'd know that nuisance is 4:3 format, but not the quality, because content matters. You come up with this stupid book advices all the time, no matter what circumstance there is.

[newpball]

You have to convert to be sure all devices can play it and explain how.

But I do not think this topic is about transcoding to a delivery format. Or am I mistaken?

You should add that to keep originals is the idea as well. But you just answer something about keep the quality, keep the quality, keep the quality, basically not answering at all.

If you have a DV source that's your source, what point would there be to transcode that if not to a delivery format?

It's basic common sense.

[_Al_]

Common sense is to not argue with you, I'm always that stupid to make a remark and then to feel sorry that I did, because you are relentless argumentator/ terminator/troll.

[newpball]

Common sense is to not argue with you, I'm always that stupid to make a remark and then to feel sorry that I did, because you are relentless argumentator/ terminator/troll.

I think you know I am right.

DV is an excellent format for editing and archiving, there is no need to transcode it "to save space", it would not make any sense.

[_Al_]

All who participated in this thread expressed to store the original. And they all added what to do to compress it. User is not stupid as you'd assume. He will process this information and act upon it. If he compresses that video and erases original that is his problem. You know what free will is? You say this and that, no quality changing but on the other hand you can say that one must color its own video so it looks right. Such a bullshit perceived by one you just perceive as a normal behavior. Did you hear throwing arguments about it here by me about how stupid it is to color your own home video? No, because it is your problem, idea of things, another opinion, you think that you make movies, do it. Let folks decide what to do just giving them options.

[theewizard]

keep the original tapes, buy more tapes for recording more video
if you want to create DVD's or BD's import the complete video and process it
using iMovie and shrinking a 40g down to 700mb is a ridiculous way to go..that is your first mistake
what ever the reason archiving the video or creating playable files or discs, you need to be working from the originals with a lossless editing format
i thought these mini DV video tapes all recorded less than 2hrs, how can you have 80g files on one of them

[hello_hello]

If you have a DV source that's your source, what point would there be to transcode that if not to a delivery format?

It's basic common sense.

The OP stated the files are too big for his purposes, whatever those may be, therefore I imagine they must be too big for his purposes. It's basic common sense. He's here to obtain help re-encoding to a smaller file size, not to explain his motives or obtain your permission.

People have fundamentally different views on quality.

DV is an editing format, it is also an archiving format (if it was recorded as such). Tape alone is not a good archiving strategy. So if someone asks for help I think I help him more by reminding him to preserve what he got instead of rushing in and offering him all kind of quality reducing compression options.

There's definitely an indirect relationship between the amount of emphasis used when making a point and the likelihood it has any relevance.
By all means remind someone they should preserve the original format when offering help, even if that person has already stated they're aware the only way to keep the original quality is to keep the original video, and from there offer some help as the previous posters did. Most people would be aware they're able to keep the "master" as well as a re-encoded version for "use", but by all means explain that if you think someone's a little silly, and from there offer some help.

That is my perspective. Others may have a different perspective, but that's what you get on a forum, answers from people with different opinions and perspectives!

Where was your answer exactly? The one answering the question asked?
A suggestion as simple a converting the video with a program such as Handbrake or Vidcoder might have made your posts helpful. I assume the OP needs Mac software and I'm not familiar with x264 encoders for a Mac, but for easy to use software that'll re-encode using the x264 encoder while allowing you to pick the quality, Handbrake might be a good place to start.
Personally, I'd start with CRF16 if maintaining as much quality as possible is important without the file size getting too out of control, but he can always experiment with different quality settings. Handbrake lets you pick a start and end point for encoding so there's no need to encode the whole file each time when experimenting,

For xtreme1699,
When using the x264 encoder, lower CRF values = higher quality and larger file sizes (I think Handbrake shows it as an RF value). CRF18 is roughly where the x264 encoder is considered to be "transparent" but you can experiment with higher or lower CRF values. For absolute perfection, you'd probably want at least CRF16 or even a bit lower, but the file sizes will increase quite a bit.

[ezcapper]

If I were you, I'd use pic mjpeg at quality level 17
http://download.accusoft.com/picvideo/PICVIDEO.EXE
you will keep all the quality you want.

If the file size is too big or that codec is too complicated for you to use, use my simple drag and drop script yax265 gui. Set speed to ultrafast and set the quality to 12500. If filesize is still too big or you don't like something about the quality, use 17 for the quality level instead. It will be slow, but that's what helps you keep quality.

yax265 gui download
64bit
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B695hmOChptNY3lJU0NGN1pUTDQ/view?usp=sharing
32bit
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B695hmOChptNMlVIckhMS2x1eWc/view?usp=sharing

Here is a 10 sec. sample dv

original file:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B695hmOChptNeWlHZGhfTVhINjA/view?usp=sharing

yax265 quality level 12500
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B695hmOChptNbkpuT1BWaTRFVDQ/view?usp=sharing

yax265 quality level 17 - smallest file but worst quality
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B695hmOChptNTUFFcmlyUWZSTWc/view?usp=sharing

yax265 quality level 10 - largest file, I don't know about quality
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B695hmOChptNOXNyV2tuTEhqc1U/view?usp=sharing

[LigH.de]

I can't agree to excapper.

1) Converting to MJPG won't keep best quality. And PICVIDEO is not even the best MJPG encoder I know. Instead of that, one could as well try to use the DV codec in ffdshow/ffvfw with a low fixed quantizer to get variable bitrate with little loss, but also only little bitrate saving.

2) I did not mention x265 on purpose, because HEVC encoding is very slow, the video format is not yet very widely supported (especially not in many comemrcial applications), and the x265 encoder still in heavy development. Instead, the AVC video format is already supported by many cutting tools, can be handled quite well with short and scene-adaptive GOPs, is satisfyingly efficient and fast enough, and the x264 encoder is mostly "final".