http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ Videomaker Community Forums » Tag: tape - Recent Posts en Wed, 15 Feb 2012 04:32:31 +0000 http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/vertical-light-how-to-remove-help-please#post-71834 Mon, 24 Oct 2011 18:41:31 +0000 composite1 71834@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Ari,</p> <p>Without seeing your footage, offhand I'd say you could try masking them out if your editing software will allow or if you have After Effects. You'll still may run into continuity issues like Earl mentioned.</p> <p> </p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/vertical-light-how-to-remove-help-please#post-71832 Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:38:36 +0000 EarlC 71832@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Probably not without interfering with the A/V continuity, or at great expense to correct in post via rotoscoping.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/vertical-light-how-to-remove-help-please#post-71829 Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:39:00 +0000 Ari N 71829@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Hi,</p> <p>I badly need help.</p> <p>I got DV video camera(Mini DV) ,(old style but like tape) I recorded outdoor videos at night.</p> <p>At the back there were lights which appeared in the video in front of public from top to bottom.(vertical). I wonder if there is any solution to remove that light?</p> <p>Any advice or suggestion will be appreciated.</p> <p>Thank you</p> <p> </p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/dirty-tate-please-help#post-61812 Sun, 29 Aug 2010 08:55:25 +0000 Jtowse 61812@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p> should have just take the panasonic 100b but i thought she would see that one. :/</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/dirty-tate-please-help#post-61806 Sat, 28 Aug 2010 19:22:03 +0000 grinner 61806@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p> Not if it was recorded in. Play it back on your best player. If it still lives, it was recorded onto the tape.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/dirty-tate-please-help#post-61805 Sat, 28 Aug 2010 18:34:27 +0000 Jtowse 61805@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p> Well I had my friend record my marriage proposal and apperently the recording heads were dirty,  black lines through the footage on the mini dv tape.  Is there any way to recover the footage?</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/hdd-vs-dv-is-quality-compromised#post-46282 Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:08:14 +0000 Eventvideoguy 46282@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>&lt;span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px;"&gt;"If you are recording video as the DV codec to a HDD camcorder, the image quality will be the same as recording to miniDV. There should not be a difference in image quality between HHD and tape when they are both recording the same video codec."&lt;/span&gt;</p> <p> </p> <p>&lt;span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px;"&gt;I don't think I have ever seen a HDD camcorder that recorded to any codec other than MPEG.  It would be nice if they were available with  other codecs though. With these 60/80/120 GB HDD camcorders they have out now, there is plenty of space to record for quality DV instead of this MPEG crap.&lt;/span&gt;</p> <p>&lt;span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px;"&gt;The problem with MPEG is that it is difficult to edit and you loose stuff while you do.&lt;/span&gt;</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/hdd-vs-dv-is-quality-compromised#post-46252 Mon, 27 Apr 2009 17:49:17 +0000 robGRAUERT 46252@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>"I plan on spending a nice chunk of savings on a one- or three-chip video camera."</p> <p>Don't waste your money on a one-chip camera. Buy a three-chip camera.</p> <p>To answer your question, the image quality of your video IS NOT determined by what you are recording to. If you are recording video as the DV codec to a HDD camcorder, the image quality will be the same as recording to miniDV. There should not be a difference in image quality between HHD and tape when they are both recording the same video codec.</p> <p>As for suggesting a camera...what is your budget? Simply saying you don't want "unnecessary luxuries" and that you want a "deal" is meaningless because everyone has their own opinion on what is an unnecessary luxury and a deal. So, what's your budget. Even better, visit <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.bhphotovideo.com</a> and search for cameras you may be interested in and come back with specific questions rather than the most broad question anyone interested in video could ask.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/hdd-vs-dv-is-quality-compromised#post-46242 Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:12:25 +0000 HighKalibur 46242@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p> </p> <p>&lt;span style="font-size: 7.5pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;"&gt;Hi, I know little about the technical aspects of cameras. I plan on spending a nice chunk of savings on a one- or three-chip video camera. I love the convenience of direct-to-hard drive storage. However, I have never been able to get a definite answer as to whether or not I am losing picture quality by not recording it to a DV Tape. Is this the case?&lt;o:p&gt;&lt;/o:p&gt;&lt;/span&gt;</p> <p>&lt;span style="font-size: 7.5pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;"&gt;What is the difference in quality when recording on a HDD or DV tape? Is there one? &lt;o:p&gt;&lt;/o:p&gt;&lt;/span&gt;</p> <p>&lt;span style="font-size: 7.5pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;"&gt;Also, as far as filmmaking goes, can anyone suggest a great starter camera (until now I have used camcorders) for an independent filmmaker that produces good picture without unnecessary luxury accessories. In other words I’m looking for a great ‘deal’ camera. &lt;o:p&gt;&lt;/o:p&gt;&lt;/span&gt;</p> <p> </p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/renaming-tape-names-in-meta-data-in-bridge-maybe#post-42996 Sat, 10 Jan 2009 19:48:17 +0000 jerronsmith 42996@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>I don't believe that the tape name is editable in Bridge, at least it wasn't considered editable data when I tried it.</p> <p>You can change the tape name in the project window, but I think it would have to be done clip by clip.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/renaming-tape-names-in-meta-data-in-bridge-maybe#post-42991 Sat, 10 Jan 2009 12:43:26 +0000 mdaniel132 42991@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p> We have captured some 60 hours of DV tape using Adobe Premier Pro CS3 for a doc project. We (2 different shooters), realized that our varied and inconsistently named TAPE NAMES that are part of the Meta Data when captured, are causing problems for our editor when we create EDLs (Editing Decision Lists for use in his AVID system)</p> <p><strong>Is it possible to easily, or globally RENAME our Original captured Tape Names encoded using Bridge or another solution???</strong></p> <p>We would be most appreciate of a answer or an idea.......hopefully a quick fix! Its 4+ years work on this documentary  project...and counting!</p> <p> Thank you!</p> <p>Martha Daniel<br /> <a href="http://www.missnancymindstheirmanners.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.missnancymindstheirmanners.com</a></p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/hdv-vs-mini-dv-2-years-from-now#post-42379 Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:26:59 +0000 chrisColorado 42379@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Hey! I happen to be the original poster and I got busy and haven't remembered to check back til now! Thanks for all the info and input. Looks like it's been pretty lively! Someone mentioned that SD is going away by 2011. That's more or less what I wanted to know. Norman (2nd poster) had it right.</p> <p>robgrauert, looks like you're still at the top of your game! keep it up! </p> <p>composite1: nice comments. You have a good point that anything can fail.</p> <p>I guess I'll wait and see in 2011. You never know, maybe a brand new format will have arisen and even blu-ray disk could be outdated! LOL</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/hdv-vs-mini-dv-2-years-from-now#post-42321 Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:03:39 +0000 composite1 42321@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Though I've worked with high-end HD &amp; SD cameras, my co' has traditionally worked in DV. We've made the jump to HDV this year and I do like the look of HD footage better. I still like DV because if you have a solid rig and the shooter took the best advantage of lighting available it will still look good. Won't have the same clarity if it had been shot on HD, but as it has been mentioned HD is a higher-res format. What I don't like is when HD footage has to be down-resed to SD. Now, that looks like crap but only because I've seen the footage at original res. As for the 'HDV and Tape vs Solid-State' beef, I like options. HDV looks better than DV but has a 'hook' in it when editing long gop MPEG. Tapes get chewed, harddrives fail, and flash cards get corrupted. Give me a camera that allows me to run a tape with a firewire out to harddrive or a High-density flash card at the same time any day. If one goes south, I've got a backup. Not to mention, what if you're shooting a documentary and for some reason you have to fork over the footage to the authorities? I'll be happy to let them have a $4.50 blank mini-DV tape with some writing on it than a $150 or more flashcard. God forbid having to cough up a $1500+ portable harddrive or a $6000+ camera with a built-in harddrive!</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/hdv-vs-mini-dv-2-years-from-now#post-42274 Tue, 16 Dec 2008 11:32:17 +0000 robGRAUERT 42274@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Pol,</p> <p>Of course DV is going to look like crap compared to HDV. HDV has a higher resolution. That's like comparing luxury car to a Honda Civic and expecting luxury features in the Civic.</p> <p>When you down convert to DV, are you sure the timeline settings are right? HDV has a square pixel aspect ratio, so down converting to DV will require you to work in NTSC's .9 pixel aspect ratio. Also note that any video on a computer isn't an accurate representation of the image. You must be using an external broadcast monitor an a TV.  </p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/hdv-vs-mini-dv-2-years-from-now#post-42273 Tue, 16 Dec 2008 11:15:55 +0000 robGRAUERT 42273@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p> Brandon,</p> <p> You are thinking of an intraframe codec (not to be mistake for intERframe). Each frame encoded individually as you stated. I believe DVCPro HD is an intraframe codec.</p> <p> GOP is "groups of pictures" and every few frames is a keyframe. The frames between the keyframes are derived from the keyframes. I believe XDCam HD is a GOP codec.</p> <p>Of course, this is a very simple explanation and is really much more complicated. But i think you get the idea :) </p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/hdv-vs-mini-dv-2-years-from-now#post-42272 Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:36:06 +0000 Don 42272@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p> I have the sony hdr hc1 and the sr12.</p> <p>One great use for tape is when the camera gets subjected to some abuse, you don't have to worry about hd failure.</p> <p>I mount my hdr hc1 on my motorcycle, but not the sr12.</p> <p>Now solid state would be nice, and certianly something I'd look at in the future..... </p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/hdv-vs-mini-dv-2-years-from-now#post-42271 Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:12:32 +0000 pol 42271@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>You got to be kidding me!!!! Why would anyone stick to DV???? I hate DV's compression, it looks like crap. If you think you might still be working with DV, get a camera that can rec on DV and give you the option to upgrade to HDV, like a Z1U or a FX1, and even so you would be buying a camera that uses a tape media not far from dead. When I first bought my Z1U I was a bit concerned and scared about HDV's workflow and didn't feel like experimenting in the middle of a project. Then I started capturing in HDV, but down converting to DV, but noticed that the images looked very nice in my monitor when I was capturing but looked awful once in my computer. Today I don't even think about using DV and I'm looking for better camera with tapeless media, such as the HMC150, or wait one more year and get a EX1. I would recommend getting a good video card like the intensity pro, that alone opens your horizon to a much broader line of video compression codecs.</p> <p> </p> <p>Plus, by the year 2011 SD will be long gone.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/hdv-vs-mini-dv-2-years-from-now#post-42270 Tue, 16 Dec 2008 09:42:47 +0000 brandon0409 42270@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Okay, yes.  That was my slip of the tongue there.</p> <p>MiniDV is only slightly compressed.  By uncompressed, I meant that every frame is an entity unto itself.  Unlike with MPEG where each frame is dependant upon a key frame.  If during editing, you mess with that key frame you will get some crappy video.</p> <p>With MiniDV I can cut and crop without worry.</p> <p>That is all I meant.</p> <p>So lets go with "<strong><em>Lightly Compressed</em></strong>"</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/hdv-vs-mini-dv-2-years-from-now#post-42264 Tue, 16 Dec 2008 08:40:09 +0000 robGRAUERT 42264@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p> I wouldn't get HDV. Isn't it expected to "go out of business" in the near future?</p> <p> </p> <blockquote><p>I think that the cam companies should be developing toward the uncompresed video. </p></blockquote> <blockquote><p> </p></blockquote> <p>Uncompressed is massive, like Birdcat mentioned. It requires a RAID, along with a greatly beefed up computer. Uncompressed video is nice, but it's not practical if you aren't going to be doing advanced compositing. I would imagine Uncompressed HD is just plain ridiculously huge. Unless you implement a hard drive, recording it will be difficult.</p> <p>To give you an idea of how huge uncompressed HD can be, REDs 4K resolution would be 20GB per minute of video if it were not compressed to a manageable size.  </p> <p>If you want uncompressed video though, cameras like the JVC 200U have HD-SDI out.  </p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/hdv-vs-mini-dv-2-years-from-now#post-42261 Tue, 16 Dec 2008 06:12:07 +0000 birdcat 42261@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>While not as much as something like AVCHD, tape is also compressed (both MiniDV and HDV) - Truly uncompressed video is massive and I am not aware of any format using it. </p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/hdv-vs-mini-dv-2-years-from-now#post-42247 Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:25:12 +0000 brandon0409 42247@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>I can only assume this is a retorical question to get us thinking since I know you are a very experienced videographer.</p> <p>I figure, with the rate of technoligal advancments, especially in the way of video and data storage, capacities will be so high on flash media that it will be possible to record uncompressed good quality SD video to a single flash driv chip.</p> <p>One MiniDV tape is from 12 to 15 GB.  I believe that currently, the highest capacity is 8 GB possibly 12GB.</p> <p>The only problem I have with HDD's and Flash drives is that EVERY SINGLE bit of video that is recorded to them is Compressed.  There is no uncompressed versions of flash camcorders.</p> <p>I think that the cam companies should be developing toward the uncompresed video.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/hdv-vs-mini-dv-2-years-from-now#post-42198 Sat, 13 Dec 2008 20:55:46 +0000 NormanWillis 42198@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Hi Chris.</p> <p>So you wanna get Flash or HDD, but don't want to lose the business if someone comes to you with a tape?</p> <p>Is that right?</p> <p>Norman</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/hdv-vs-mini-dv-2-years-from-now#post-42196 Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:44:57 +0000 chrisColorado 42196@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>If you were already planning on buying a camera in 2011, would you plan on getting HDV or Mini DV? I'm in this position and would like some opinions.</p> <p>I'm a pro videographer with several short films and other projects under my belt. I've used Mini DV, HDD and Flash Media and after much study, I'm looking into buying a tape camera in two years. I hate tape, so why would a consider buying a camera that uses it? Simply because most people consider tape to be the weapon of videographers, and if someone comes to me with a tape to be captured, I'd like to do it, rather than sending a customer to someone else.</p> <p>There are some considerations for this question. Perhaps tape won't be the thing 2 years from now. Maybe Flash Media or HDD will be the popular format, maybe something new we haven't thought of yet. I personally prefer Flash Media to all other recording options.</p> <p>What is your opinion?  Thanks!  Chris</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/minidv-quality-to-dvd#post-41402 Wed, 12 Nov 2008 01:07:26 +0000 Coreece 41402@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Also,  what format is your miniDV footage. ( ex. AVI, MOV)</p> <p>You want to make sure you have the best possibly quality prior to encoding DVD.  If your video was compressed or converted to a lossy format somehow during the editing process, it will not look pretty once that file is finally compressed to Mpeg 2 DVD.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/minidv-quality-to-dvd#post-41400 Wed, 12 Nov 2008 00:50:39 +0000 Coreece 41400@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>There will always be some quality loss when encoding for DVD. (even if you can't notice it)</p> <p>DVD footage needs to be mpeg2 which is a lossy format, but it shouldn't look bad if its encoded properly.</p> <p>The three general formats are:</p> <p>1 PASS CBR:</p> <p>This is for shorter videos that have a minimal amount of fast action movements and/or pans This is the faster method of encoding and will render a larger file.typically the best bit rate will be 8mbps, but 7mbps is good too.  You can go higher but this is not recommended because it may be to fast for some DVD players. </p> <p>1 PASS VBR</p> <p>This setting may not be available with many encoders and really isn't necessary, but it would typically be used with longer videos with a minimal amount of fast movement.</p> <p>2 pass VBR</p> <p>This is used for longer videos that include fast action movement.  It will analylze the video in the first pass and than encode a higher bit rate for parts of the video that have fast action and lower bitrates in the areas that have less movement.  This format maximizes quality while maintaing a smaller file size.  The bitrate will depend on how long your video is.   In variable bitrate encoding, there are 3 settings:</p> <p>    - Average Bitrate - Maximum Bit Rate  - Minimum Bitrate</p> <p>The range between 6.5 -8.0 mbps will render better quality, however, if you video is over 90 minutes, you'll have to use a lower range.</p> <p>I have noticed that motion graphics and animated backgrounds seem to be more affected by DVD compression, so if this describes your video, expect there to me some undesireable effects.  There really is not too much you can do...DVD compression was great for awhile, especially when there were only tube TVs.  The moitors today are very detailed and show off all the imperfections.  </p> <p>If you have a Good HD monitor, you'll notice that any Hollywood Blockester on DVD has some artifacts in the motion graphic intros...and in some cases, it's really bad...including text.  You'll also notice some artifacts in the darker scenes of the movie as well.  But sometimes, you really can't tell unless you're looking for it.</p> <p>It also may help to do a search for a good Bit Rate calculator.  This may make it a little easier for you to determine the settings for VBR.  If you don't like the quality using the settings that the bit rate calculator gave you, try using a higher rate if you video didn't max out the space on the DVD.</p> <p>Regards,</p> <p>Corey</p> <p>Its not necessary to know this, but you may see settings for GOP(groups of pictures).  You can usually keep this at the default setting.  GOP is the compression technique that gives DVD compression its lossy characteristic.  Thaey consist of I-frames B-frames and P-frames.</p> <p>I found this following explanation from wikipedia to be rather humorous the fist time I read it:</p> <p>MPEG-2 specifies that the raw frames be compressed into three kinds of frames: intra-coded frames (<a href="http://videomaker.com/wiki/I-frame">I-frame</a>), predictive-coded frames (<a href="http://videomaker.com/wiki/I-frame">P-frames</a>), and bidirectionally-predictive-coded frames (<a href="http://videomaker.com/wiki/I-frame">B-frames</a>).</p> <p>An <a href="http://videomaker.com/wiki/I-frame">I-frame</a> is a compressed version of a single uncompressed (raw) frame. It takes advantage of spatial redundancy and of the inability of the eye to detect certain changes in the image. Unlike P-frames and B-frames, I-frames do not depend on data in the preceding or the following frames. Briefly, the raw frame is divided into 8 pixel by 8 pixel blocks. The data in each block is transformed by a <a href="http://videomaker.com/wiki/Discrete_cosine_transform">discrete cosine transform</a>. The result is an 8 by 8 matrix of coefficients. The transform converts spatial variations into frequency variations, but it does not change the information in the block; the original block can be recreated exactly by applying the inverse cosine transform. The advantage of doing this is that the image can now be simplified by <a href="http://videomaker.com/wiki/Quantization_(image_processing)">quantizing</a> the coefficients. Many of the coefficients, usually the higher frequency components, will then be zero. The penalty of this step is the loss of some subtle distinctions in brightness and color. If one applies the inverse transform to the matrix after it is quantized, one gets an image that looks very similar to the original image but that is not quite as nuanced. Next, the quantized coefficient matrix is itself compressed. Typically, one corner of the quantized matrix is filled with zeros. By starting in the opposite corner of the matrix, then zigzagging through the matrix to combine the coefficients into a string, then substituting <a href="http://videomaker.com/wiki/Run-length_encoding">run-length codes</a> for consecutive zeros in that string, and then applying <a href="http://videomaker.com/wiki/Huffman_coding">Huffman coding</a> to that result, one reduces the matrix to a smaller array of numbers. It is this array that is broadcast or that is put on DVDs. In the receiver or the player, the whole process is reversed, enabling the receiver to reconstruct, to a close approximation, the original frame.</p> <p>Typically, every 15th frame or so is made into an I-frame. P-frames and B-frames might follow an I-frame like this, IBBPBBPBBPBB(I), to form a <a href="http://videomaker.com/wiki/Group_of_pictures">Group Of Pictures (GOP)</a>; however, the standard is flexible about this.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/minidv-quality-to-dvd#post-41393 Tue, 11 Nov 2008 22:04:27 +0000 robGRAUERT 41393@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <blockquote><p> Is the quality of a consumer miniDV camcorder going to look bad when burned to a DVD?</p></blockquote> <p>No. Just compress it properly. You may not even really have to compress it if your video is less than 4.7GB.</p> <p> </p> <blockquote><p> What are the best settings to render the miniDV video footage and burn it to DVD and have the greatest possible quality?....</p></blockquote> <blockquote><p> </blockquote> I just render it as DV/DVCPro NTSC.   </p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/minidv-quality-to-dvd#post-41380 Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:41:20 +0000 RockstarRider 41380@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Is the quality of a consumer miniDV camcorder going to look bad when burned to a DVD?.......</p> <p>What are the best settings to render the miniDV video footage and burn it to DVD and have the greatest possible quality?....</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/best-tape-for-canon-xha1#post-40731 Wed, 15 Oct 2008 06:38:35 +0000 robGRAUERT 40731@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p> I don't think it really matters. I think it's more important to consistently buy the same brand, like, always use panasonic or always use canon or whatever. does that make sense?</p> <p> </p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/best-tape-for-canon-xha1#post-40722 Tue, 14 Oct 2008 18:56:17 +0000 CarefreeDenny 40722@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Any recommendations on the best High Quality tape for a Canon XHA1 in HD ....?</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/stuck-tape-sony-vx-2100-3210-error-code#post-36528 Wed, 14 May 2008 18:50:02 +0000 Johnboy 36528@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>well, you have a tape mechanism malfunction, you will have to get the camera serviced, and I would estimate parts would run between $30 and $75 dollars....</p> <p> John</p>