I have a rather large collection of family videos shot on Beta and Hi8,
dating from the mid-80's. I plan to digitize them using Pinnacle Studio 9
AV/DV. My question has to do with the best way to store them after they are
digitized.

Pinnacle digitizes to AVI format onto the computer hard drive, which they
claim has the maximum quality. If I render them for copying to DVDs, my
understanding is that they will be converted to MPEG2, which supposedly has
some additional loss (although I haven't been able to observe a lot of
difference). I only have 200 gig on the hard drive, so I cannot store all of
the AVIs there long term. So here are my questions:

1. Is there enough difference between AVI and MPEG2 that I should consider
it important to archive in AVI?

2. If the answer to #1 is yes, I would understand that my only solution is
to purchase a deck or D8, DV or mini-DV tape camcorder (or other?) to
archive the information. Are there opinions about the best approach (taking
into consideration camera quality and cost, cost of storage media, quality
of storage, longevity, etc.)?

Thanks for your help.

Terry Quinn




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

If you have the storage, go with AVI for archiving. The primary reason is that
you will be able to easily edit the family videos in the future. MPEG-2 is more
of a "final output" format that doesnt lend itself to editing very well,
although it compresses better than AVI and will give you more video/DVD blank.

The dual-layer DVD media (9 GB) are coming down in price and would prob. be your
best bet for archiving. Otherwise, rent an LTO tape drive (some tape formats
can hold 400GB per tape).



"Terry Quinn" <the_quin@mtco.com> wrote in message
news:41771e1e$1_4@127.0.0.1...

For most of us who want to preserve personal videotapes, copying to
DVD is the practical solution. The hardware costs next to nothing -
under $100 will buy just about the best internal writer there is, and
less than twice that will buy a direct writer that will save you any
hands-on effort of passing the video stream through a computer.

The stand-alone also denies you the ability to edit the video, but I
gather from your comment that you have a *lot* of tapes to archive and
won't necessarily want to spend a lot of time.

(From an analog source like Hi8, you'll need a digitizer of some kind,
anothr $150. I'm happy with the ADS Pyro A/V Link - Svideo or other
input choices, firewire out, in its latest incarnation absolutely a
cakewalk to use.)

At the moment, the best quality 8x blanks are 35 cents, so you can
easily make a couple of copies on different media and store them in
different places. Although claims for DVD media longevity are
impressive, and we know that tape deteriorates relatively quickly, if
I wanted to preserve video for ages I'd copy the DVD's every ten
years. That's a nicely trivial step.

If you use a decent encoder, the lossy compression that mpeg-2 imposes
will in no way be noticeable, nor interfere with your ability to later
edit the material. Storing .avi files is better, but is guilding the
lily - 30 minutes of DV quality avi is 7GB, and shrinks to about 1GB
as high quality mpg.


"Terry Quinn" <the_quin@mtco.com> wrote:

"Terry Quinn" wrote ...
With good-quality source material, yes the difference between
AVI and MPEGx is significant. However, you said that you were
archiving 20-year old Beta & Hi8. And in your own words:
"I haven't been able to observe a lot of difference."

DV-quality AVI is ~13GB per hour. Hard disk space in my
neighborhood these days is going for less than $1 per gigabyte.

OTOH, DVD-R disks are going for less than a quarter of that.
A DVD-R will store 12~15 minutes of AVI per disk. Many
people think that is the best combination of quality/cost.

OTOH, If you are only preserving the tapes as-is for posterity,
saving as standard DVDs (MPEG2) may be the best choice.
As others have pointed out, MPEG is much more difficult to
edit after the fact than AVI.

OTOOH, a cheap DV camcorder would serve not only as a
DV tape recorder, but also a next-generation camcorder for
shooting with today.

Thanks for everyone's useful comments. Sounds like I pretty much had this
understood . . . AVI is best, especially if I want to edit more in the
future, but DVD isn't too bad if I'm just looking for a consumer solution.
Now I just need to decide what to put on CD and what to put on mini-DV.

As to the digitizing, the Pinnacle Studio 9 AV/DV has already provided the
hardware. And it is doing a good job. The material shot in Hi8 is coming
out well, especially since I'm playing it from a Sony Hi8 VCR with some
digital correction (noise and TBC) of its own.

Terry





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Terry Quinn" <the_quin@mtco.com> wrote:

base. Converting back to avi is an extra step, but is relatively quick
and trivial. Don't let that stop you. Likewise, you'll do yourself a
disservice if you get it in your mind that mpeg-2 has meaningful
degradation. Do use a good encoder, of course, and a high bitrate.

Actually, when I've tried to edit in Pinnacle using MPEG as the source
instead of AVI, there isn't even an extra step. I haven't been able to
determine yet if there is any degradation from the source MPEG.



"John" <usenet@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:gjjfn05qtr7m33b2skf78c7hkbiqspp2jg@4ax.com...




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

John <usenet@nospam.org> wrote in message news:<gjjfn05qtr7m33b2skf78c7hkbiqspp2jg@4ax.com>. ..

What an uninformed and irresponsible piece of, well, I hesitate to
call it advice. MPEG-2 is a lossy compression scheme. No matter what
you may think, you cannot extract MPEG-2 video back into the original
AVI, it just isn't possible. You are simply creating an AVI-format
copy of the MPEG-2 data, including all artifacts and lost detail. No
matter what bitrate you use on any type of encoder, once you
re-compress the edited AVI back into MPEG-2, you will have compressed
it twice. Then, if you go back to that and edit it again, you're
going to end up compressing it yet again.

What you're advocating is akin to suggesting that you can copy a copy
of a copy and still suffer no generation loss. While that is normally
true in the digital world, once you introduce compression OF ANY KIND
AT ANY BITRATE, the result is not as good as the original and it is
impossible to retrieve the original from the copy. I can take a DV
cassette and record it onto VHS, but if I copy that VHS back onto DV
it does not magically regain all the clarity of DV simply because it's
on that format. Similarly, I can record a CD onto cassette, then burn
the contents of that cassette back onto that CD, and even though it is
on a CD, it is still only cassette quality. I don't suppose you'd
understand things like that, but for the sake of others who might have
taken your ignorant suggestion at face value, I thought it worth
pointing out.

PDTV, your message is zealotry. I did not suggest that mpg-2 is
lossless, merely that for us unwashed masses, it's far more than
merely "good enough". We each get to set our own standards, and yours
are no doubt noble but probably not applicable to this situation. The

Anyone interested in the ultimate lossless storage that you advocate
would be asking how to archive his professionally produced betacam
tapes, or better. Those of us with a collection of Hi8 tapes are not
served with stories about how lossy mpg-2 is. My "best" Hi8 equipment
was a VX-3, and I don't particularly want to go to any great expense
to create a perfect copy of analog noise.



pdtv_info@yahoo.com (PDTV) wrote:

Some Pinnacle products have been doing this for years. Mpegs encoded
with the DV500 could be edited without further encoding unless transitions
etc were added. Even then it would just be the transitions that were re
encoded. The new Liquid Edition 6 is claimed to do this.

http://www.tvtechnology.com/features..._Editing.shtml

"Terry Quinn" <the_quin@mtco.com> wrote in message
news:41785266_4@127.0.0.1...

John <usenet@nospam.org> wrote in message news:<0d6hn0hoagh7c3gs9jke9jm5360dgn0lbt@4ax.com>. ..
It's not "zealotry" it's fact. Sure, MPEG-2 is "good enough" for most
applications, I'm not disputing that. I have plenty of stuff on VHS
that once archived on DVD I plan to get rid of the original tapes.
Even though there are better technologies on the horizon (HDVD,
Blu-ray, etc.), I don't see any point in keeping the original masters
in order to re-master them in the future. It's VHS, so MPEG-2 on
DVD-R is an accurate enough reproduction.

My point is that if someone archives to MPEG-2 they should be aware
that further editing of the material is not recommended. For
instance, I had a set of five T-120 VHS tapes that were taking up far
too much space and had some redundant material on them, etc. I took
those five tapes and compiled the most important footage onto two new
tapes (this was before DVD), and even though there was noticeable
generation loss, it was fine. However, I did this with the
understanding that if I ever wanted to go back and edit those two
cassettes further that the quality would degrade yet again and at that
point the pleasure of watching that footage would be significantly
diminished.

All I'm saying is that you really have to forget that MPEG-2 is
digital and treat it like an analog format. You ARE going to
experience degradation, and every time you transcode, there's gonna be
MORE degradation. Converting to AVI is NOT going to prevent this.
The earlier reply that suggested MPEG-2 as a viable format only if
further editing would be unlikely was 100% correct, and your follow-up
that whether or not the OP would want to do further editing didn't
really matter was ignorant and irresponsible. I'm sure you probably
can't see why, but if you do enough converting, editing, and
re-compressing of MPEG-2 video, you'll begin to see a difference.
Also, you have to take into account that this footage is not always
gonna be viewed in Media Player on some PC desktop or on a 19" analog
TV.

Even if artifacts are not visible now, they will be once technology
improves. At this point, you can't see all the detail that's on a
DVD, whether it's picture information or artifacts, on a normal analog
TV. Eventually, most people will have high-def displays that will
show any sign of macroblocking or MPEG artifacting. If this is
something the OP wants to preserve for the future (which is what he
indicated), then he needs to either compress it into MPEG-2, burn it
onto DVD-R and leave it, or store it in some kind of uncompressed
format (or DV at the very least), so that further editing will not
introduce significant degradation. That is not "zealotry", that is in
the best interest of the original poster. Your "live in the moment,
the future doesn't matter" attitude is irresponsible and
short-sighted, and if taken seriously, will leave the original poster
with a blurry macroblocked mess that is going to be barely watchable
once he edits and transcodes one too many times.

Before my question causes any more animosity, let me say that I'm
appreciative of both views. I have done some editing on major projects
where I put in significant effort on Hi8 originals (using just analogue
assembly editing . . . uhg), and for now, I'll probably copy those to AVI
files (break it into segments that will fit on multiple DVDs, at least until
I get something to copy to DV tapes. I think I can do this with Pinnacle in
a way that if I need to, I can reassemble it as DVI. Will I edit it again
in the future? Don't know, but I might.

At the same time, I have some historical material that I'd like to keep, but
will probably always be just recreational viewing for the family, with
little likelihood of further editing. I'll run those off to MPEG2 files in
DVD format, and box up the tapes, knowing that if I ever get into them
again, they probably will be rotten, and all I'll have is the DVD in MPEG2.

So again, thanks for everyone's advice, it has been very helpful.

Terry





"PDTV" <pdtv_info@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2689a1aa.0410221416.322df234@posting.google.c om...
That is not "zealotry", that is in



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Just to add to the fun it should also be said recordable media shouldn't be
considered permanent and rots over time. Personally, if it'll be missed,
remember to make a fresh copy every few years. Also remember optical media
is largely expected to be replaced by something like Compact Flash cards in
the near future. So your disc, regardless of whats on it, will be outdated.

DVD-MPG2 is lossy and poorly set can make scrambled eggs out of video, but
to its credit you can probably count on finding a device to read it ten
years from now. AVIs on the other hand your assuming PCs and Windows will
remain dominate and retain backwards compatibility. Personally I use DV
tapes for archiving, it the quality of an avi, its kept in a common consumer
format, they're pretty small, and should last long enough until the next
generation of junk comes along. So your plan sounds well enough.

As I said in e-mail, it's not animosity, it's simply a desire to
expose ignorance for what it is. Just because MPEG is digital, it
doesn't mean you can edit and re-encode without degradation. The fact
remains that when you have compressed an AVI into MPEG, then convert
that MPEG file back to AVI, you aren't getting the original AVI, just
a copy of the MPEG.

Exactly, people need to remember that as they compress to a smaller file,
they lose data and can never go back to a bigger file without the conversion
making up new data.
This is hard for some people to understand but it applies to all digital
media, photos, music etc...

Many people transfer their audio cd's to mp3's onto the computer and then
burn a playlist back to a cd.
It converts back to the audio cd format just so that it can play in home
audio players.
Now, does it have all the music data it originally had as an audio cd? No,
of course not.
Did it sound acceptable as an MP3? If so, then it will sound just as good
when converted back to an audio cd.
Most people can't hear the difference, and the missing music data wasn't
really needed for the song to sound good.

It is the same principal with video, from an avi to mpeg2, you remove
unnecessary data, for instance the pixels info on objects that are
stationary, pixel information on background scenes that don't change much,
the sky color etc..
If the resulting video looks good as an MPEG2 file, it will look just the
same when it's converted back to an avi.
Which isn't going to increase the quality but not decrease it any further
than the original compression.

As far as editing, you lose some detail when you add titles and do fades and
effects on the original video data, even when working with DV or AVI, but of
course, there is more data to begin with, so it will look better overhaul.
People just need to picture this mentally and then always remember the rule,
if you throw out data, you'll have less data when you want to go back to a
better format, so there will be no real benefit to go back.
Unless, as in the case of making a cd from mp3's, you just need to go back
to get it to play in software that doesn't read the new format well.

In the analog world people seen the results of data loss and corruption
easily when they use to make a copy of a copy and add a title and then copy
it back etc... There was so much generation loss, it was obvious.
With digital formats this generation loss is gone, but people will still see
corruption and generation loss when editing mpeg video, not as bad as
editing vhs tapes use to give you, but some quality loss.
I think it is minimal compared to analog editing, and can yield acceptable
results if not overdone.
So it can be ok to edit mpeg2 video and have some artifacts introduced but
still yield and acceptable picture for most people. Consumer video quality,
let's say. Professionals should know better.

AnthonyR.

"PDTV" <pdtv_info@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2689a1aa.0410261103.79d3f3ac@posting.google.c om...

"terry" <reply2group@thanks.zzz> wrote in message
news:BZrfd.28185$%k.645@pd7tw2no...

Terry,
I was just wondering if the word "lossy" as used in your sentence is an
actual word?
I know what it means cause it's used on this forum constantly. But I looked
it up on my electronic
dictionary, and the best match it found was lousy, LOL
Is it one of those words specific to our field? Maybe my dictionary just
isn't big enough to include it.
Just curious,

AnthonyR

AnthonyR wrote:

Webopedia (http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/L/lossy_compression.html) has a
pretty good description on the word lossy.

"Refers to data compression techniques in which some amount of data is
lost. Lossy compression technologies attempt to eliminate redundant or
unnecessary information. Most video compression technologies, such as
MPEG, use a lossy technique."

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossy_data_compression) is
another great source.

-Richard

Thanks for backing me up here, but I think you're muddying the point
further.

I don't expect "consumers" to keep their footage in pristine quality
-- they needn't use DV, or hi-def, or what have you. In fact, I'll
say yet again that MPEG-2 is FINE as a storage format, and I archive
PLENTY of stuff to MPEG-2 so I won't have to bother with VHS, and I
don't even keep the original tapes in most cases.

The fact remains that editing MPEG video and re-encoding into MPEG is
very much like analog recording -- you're not only going to GET a kind
of "generation loss
", it MULTIPLIES as you edit and re-edit.

Open up a .jpeg picture in a program like Photoshop. Looks fine,
doesn't it? JPEG is a "lossy" compression scheme, but there's nothing
wrong with the picture just because it's a JPEG, is there? Nope,
looks fine, doesn't it? Now save that JPEG as another JPEG using
quality setting 8, which is probably higher than what it was
originally saved at (you can tell by whatever setting is already in
the dialog box). Now, open the resulting file and take a look at it.
Better yet, save that file again as yet another JPEG, also at the
"High" (8) quality setting. It shouldn't take more that a couple
iterations of this process for the picture to reach "unacceptable"
quality, especially since you've seen the original JPEG that was
probably saved from an uncompressed image.

Now, you may ask, how can this be when every time you saved out a new
JPEG, you chose the "High" quality setting? Look at it this way --
even if you save an uncompressed image as a JPEG at the highest
quality setting, you're probably only getting 80% of the detail that's
in the image. Furthermore, every time you save it back out as a JPEG,
EVEN AT THE HIGHEST SETTING, you're only getting 80% of the detail in
the first JPEG, which is already only 80% of what was in the
uncompressed file. Also keep in mind that you can save a JPEG as a
..psd, TIFF, or whatever, and it's still not any better than the
original JPEG, and will continue to deteriorate if you re-save the
image as a JPEG, even without editing it. Here's how it works:

UNCOMPRESSED IMAGE (100% detail)

JPEG at "10" setting (80% of original detail)

SAVE AGAIN AS JPEG at "10" (80% of 80% which equals 64% of original
detail)

SAVE AS UNCOMPRESSED .PSD FILE (preserves all of the 64% detail you
have left, but doesn't get you back any lost detail)

SAVE AGAIN AS JPEG at "10" (80% of 64% which equals 51.2% detail)


Anyway, I think you can see where this is going. The point I'm trying
to make is this: Is 80% of the original detail "acceptable"? Sure,
you probably won't even notice it. If you decide you REALLY want to
edit your material and you don't mind a little drop in quality, is 64%
"watchable"? Depends on your personal tastes, but for argument's sake
I'll accept that. Thing is, now you've got footage that's 64% of what
it once was sitting around. Say in a couple years, new equipment
comes out that's backwards-compatible with the format your footage is
in so it'll still play it, but even at 100% quality, it will show
limitations of the recording medium (Hi8, whatever) you originally
used. So with that information (that even 100% quality isn't gonna
look so hot because it was recorded on older technology), is 64% still
good enough? In fact, since you now only have 64%, are you really all
that confident that you can still go back and edit if you want to? If
100% will show its age on your new equipment, are you that sure that
"because it's digital", going down to 51.2% isn't going to be
noticeable???

Now, if anyone still doesn't get what I'm saying here, find yourself a
nice full-size VHS camcorder and stick with it -- you have no business
with anything more advanced.

Good day to you all.

lol, I think the term got popular as a quick way to explain mp3.

The info posted below sounds very authoritative, and leads to the
conclusion that anyone who dares to make multi-generation edits is a
fool who should be using primitive tools suited to his unwashed state.

Unfortunately, it's the poster who's misinformed. Before anyone is
misled into thinking any of this is true, try the experiment yourself.

I made 6 generations of jpeg saves starting from a high-resolution
jpg (from a Fuji 600 digicam), then trimmed the last generation in
half and slid that half on top the first generation. On a good quality
CRT display, running 1600x1280, zoomed 200%, there was NO visible
difference between the first and sixth generation. YMMV, of course,
but the content was reasonably appropriate to the test.

The OP makes an argument that sounds scholarly - 80 % degradation each
time, multiplied out, leads to garbage quickly. His error is in not
realizing that the algorithms don't work that way - the first
compression will lose detail that it deems unnecessary. The following
decompression will display a picture that's may indeed be missing 20%
of its information. However, the next compression will be starting
with a picture that has already been processed, and that compression
step will find that it can complete its work without throwing away
significant additional information.

TRY IT YOURSELF, and remember to not believe everything you read, even
(especially?) when there are meaningful-sounding numbers scattered
about.

Now I too have taken liberties in making my point. I used the same
software to go back and forth each time, so the same algorithms were
used. Had I used different programs with different algorithms, there
might be a chance that the algorithm designers would have taken
different approaches, and additional details could have been lost as I
went along. My personal experience says that's not a significant issue
- the art is well developed and the algorithms tend follow the same
rules - but I don't know that for a fact. Even when working with
high-resolution still images, though, a far more critical environment
than a movie, we've probably all observed that we can let our digicam
do a jpg save, we can edit the image and do a second jpg save, and can
still print an 8x10 or larger that we're proud of.



pdtv_info@yahoo.com (PDTV) wrote: