Also, DV AVI is a better medium to work with since it is lossless. MPEG is a lossy compression and therefore does not edit well not to mention that it is of lesser quality than AVI. However, I believe that if you stick to the same file attributes as the original file, you won't lose much if any quality.

HeeHee:

> DV AVI is a better medium to work with since it is lossless. MPEG is a lossy compression and therefore does not edit well not to mention that it is of lesser quality than AVI. However, I believe that if you stick to the same file attributes as the original file, you won't lose much if any quality.

DV is not lossless, it is 4:1:1 (which is already lossy) and 5:1 compressed. It's just less compressed than typical MPEG. However, some systems use I-frame only 25 or 50 mbps MPEG in a similar fashion as we use DV.

MPEG is also not as useful as a source format because of the inter-frame dependencies, it takes longer to pull a random frame.

///d@

I stand corrected. What about quality of rerendered MPEG files?

Ok so how do I capture uncompressed AVI? As I mentioned in a previous post I use to be able to capture uncomprssed AVI from DV cam through FireWire. File sizes were huge, but the quality was kick $$$. I would then edit, add FX etc...then convert to MPEG and burn to DVD+RW.....and the finished product was very clean and nice. Now when I capture I get this compressed DV AVI that doesn't looks as clean or nice :(. There must be away t do this, as before I added SF this is what I did.

Thanks For Listening.....:)

When you use VidCap to capture DV, you're getting a bit for bit file copy of the DV signal from the tape. So capturing to DV is the best quality you can get from a DV source. If you capture to uncompressed, you're just getting an uncompressed version of the same already compressed signal. It should look absolutely identical, or even be slightly worse due to any decompression errors that sneak in. Stick with capturing to DV. If the results don't look as good to you then there's something else that needs to be changed somewhere.

>>>Now when I capture I get this compressed DV AVI that doesn't looks as clean or nice :(

this doesn't make sense, can you provide any samples that prove there is a difference in quality? logic tells me that you can't get something from nothing, but my logic has proved to be wrong in the past.

I think you might be seeing something that isn't there. it's amazing what the human mind is capable of... which is why double blind tests were invented.

>>>MPEG is also not as useful as a source format because of the inter-frame dependencies, it takes longer to pull a random frame.

have you ever edited I-frame MPEG files? I would expect that since there aren't any inter-frame dependencies, that response would be good. this format would provide a good way to edit 4:2:2 wouldn't it? how does Vegas perform with it?

I-frame only MPEG-2, and even "IP" MPEG-2, are used by some editing systems out there. 4:1:1 25mbps I-frame MPEG-2 should be similar to DV. Vegas should work fine with these files, although I've not tried it myself.
///d@