MPEG versus AVI

sdgates wrote on 8/4/2003, 8:44 AM

Somewhere on the Internet a while back I read that the best way to edit video is to do so in MPEG format. That would mean no transcoding when making a DVD and much less storage would be used on hard drives.

Is this viable with VideoFactory or VegasVideo?

Per JohhnyRoy's posting in the "I'm ready to upgrade. vegas or adobe premier?" thread [http://www.sonicfoundry.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=203554&Page=1 in VF forums] I looked up the current deals for VV at VideoGuys.com and see several VV+burner packages that look extremely interesting.

So now I am thinking - rather than blow $700 for a new home-brew computer, maybe I should spring for a VV bundle instead. But storage would still be a big problem because I am currently working on 4 projects that take up 80 GB of space. I currently don't have room for anything more! Thus my interest in editing in MPEG format.

So what was the deal with that posting (wherever it was) - is MPEG editing possible in VV?

Thanks for your advice guys!

Comments

BillyBoy wrote on 8/4/2003, 9:03 AM

Actaully no. The reason is simple. MPEG regardless of how high a quality it is, still is a compressed format. More to the problem its how MPEG format works that makes it a poor choice as a source file. Without going into a lot of details why, the main problem comes from recompressing a file that's already compressed. The case of diminishing returns. Each generation will look worse than the last.

So while you can and I do too (when I have no other choice) something to be avoided if possible. I'll give you a qualifed yes, you can edit a MPEG in Vegas, but avoid if possible. If you do, watch the 'black' 'green' frames on the timeline. These may come and go and appear only at higher zoom levels. Generally not that big a problem and almost always a sign of partial file corruption. If you snip out a handful of frames prior and after what I refer to as the 'dead' area you can still make a decent file.

If you use MPEG as source, pay more attention to level/color correction which will pay dividends. Good luck.

As far as the space issue, my solution was to use drives in removable drawers. In effect you have virtually unlimited storage space. All you need in a single open slot in the front panel of your PC.

mcgeedo wrote on 8/4/2003, 9:10 AM

You can edit mpeg, but you'll not like the results, and you'll wish you were editing DV. I started with mpeg editing and spent a lot of money on that failed experiment.

farss wrote on 8/4/2003, 9:31 AM

BillyBoy for once I'd have to disagree with you, well in part.

MPEG is capable of much higher quality than DV and may well replace it as a capture format if JVC, Sony and Cannon have their way. Its also got another plus over DV as a capture format as it can correct much bigger errors than DV.
Its also used for DVB both SD and HD.

The rest of what you say is spot on though, its a dog to edit as is anything that uses temporal compression, you could do it easily if your file was all I frames but that kind of defeats the idea of saving disk space!

TheHappyFriar wrote on 8/4/2003, 10:44 AM

I've editing in all mpeg on a computer i was setting up. I had to capture all i frames, and the editing was about 1/2 to 1/4 speed of DV (which mean slowwwwwwwwwwwwww editign foryour hour editing project). However, a 720x480 mpeg-2 @ 8 mbs all i frame file is about 3/4 to 1/2 the size of a coresponding DV file (captures with an ATI All In Wonder card).

BillyBoy wrote on 8/4/2003, 11:38 AM

I think we're in one of those areas again where we are talking about somewhat differenct things. If I'm reading correctly what Farss is talking about; source meaning 1st generation GENERATED from a camera, then yes, you could get high quality (haven't seen any myself, don't have any camera cabable of generating it) whereas I was referring to MPEG typical of what you may pick up off the Internet or generated yourelf, which would mean you're getting into multiple generation stuff.

Lawrence wrote on 8/4/2003, 11:55 AM

Sony and Hitachi has camcorders that capture mpeg2 at 8 Mb.
Edit in Mpeg is good only for simple cut and paste.

Try overlay texts and transitions, you see lot of video noises.

Like what's Billyboy says, avoid mpeg if possible in editing.

riredale wrote on 8/4/2003, 2:41 PM

MPEG2 and DV are both compression formats. Typical MPEG2 is much more compressed than DV, and is thus much more "fragile" (i.e. able to survive only a limited number of compression round-trips before artifacts appear). I think Vegas and most other NLEs are optimized for DV, though they could work with other formats.

Hard disk space is getting laughably cheap these days. I bought a 200GB drive a few weeks ago for $119. Even if DV needs 13GB per hour, so what? When my project is done, it goes to miniDV tape for storage and is also fed into the MPEG2 hopper if it is destined to appear on DVD.

bgccdx wrote on 8/4/2003, 4:32 PM

My answer is simple. Don't chose MPEG because it is a cow to edit. I spent lots of money and hours trying to edit the MPEG that was recorded by my Sony IP220 camera. I ended up converting the MPEGs to AVI and edited them. Now I shoot DV which I can edit with ease.

sdgates wrote on 8/4/2003, 11:54 PM

Thanks guys for the very helpful information! Quality is "job one" in my book, so I'll forget editing in MPEG and go back to "Plan A" - create a really nice, expandable disk array. I discovered a relatively cheap drive controller from LSI (at least when compared to SCSI controllers costing over a grand) that not only uses the new Serial ATA (SATA) drives, not only has 64 MB of cache implimented in ECC SDRAM, but it'll handle up to SIX SATA drives. If I start with 200 GB drives, I'll eventually end up with 1 terabyte of storage. (Generally speaking, one drives worth of storage ends up being used for parity - thus 1,000 GB rather than 1,200 GB available storage.)

(Click here for a listing.)

Thanks again for everybody's input!!!!