Why does VV3 not support 4:2:2 sources

asafb wrote on 9/29/2002, 7:09 PM

Anybody know why vv3 is limited to 4:1:1?

Panasonic told me they're working on a firewire port on their DVCPRO decks which can carry the 4:2:2 signal! What gives?

Is there really a big difference between the two compressions?
If you took the TOP-OF-THE-LINE dvcam camcorder and the top-of-the-line digital betacam / dvcpro 50 camcorder, which will win? :)

Help !!

AB

Comments

asafb wrote on 9/29/2002, 7:09 PM

also if vv3 does not support 4,2,2 which nl3 does? thanx

Tyler.Durden wrote on 9/29/2002, 7:38 PM

Hi Asafb,

Standard DV is 4:1:1 (or 4:2:0 PAL). Period.

Other formats like DVCpro-50 are similar to standard DV, but as you see, are not.

Vegas can edit 4:2:2 footage if you want to spend the time and money to get it to Vegas. You cannot use a 1394 card... you need something like a pinnacle T3000 or a Matrox Digisuite. They capture analog and convert it to Mjpeg at scalable compressions down to lossless, or they take in digital via SDI.

DVCpro50 is less expensive than Digital Betacam, but a bit more expensive than most standard DV.

In order of quality: Digibeta, DVCpro50, DVCam

HTH, MPH

asafb wrote on 9/29/2002, 8:03 PM

thanks marty i really appreciate the explanation.

By the way which is better to use quicktime or avi? And these cards you mentioned the t3000 and matrox digisuite - they use AVI files when you use sdi?

Tyler.Durden wrote on 9/29/2002, 8:54 PM

Hi again,

The cards mentioned above typically compress to avi.

RE: qt or avi (both uncompressed), I don't know if one is better than the other.

HTH, MPH

taliesin wrote on 9/29/2002, 9:04 PM

Both Quicktime and AVI are containers only. This does not determine a quality, so there is no "better" or "worse".
It depends on the codec you use inside Quicktime or AVI.

The SonicFoundry DV-codec used in the AVI-container is best you can find out there. Only the Canopus DV-codec is in similar range. Any other dv codec is worse in quality.

Marco

John_Beech wrote on 10/3/2002, 3:51 PM

The answer to your question lies only in your doing a split-screen analysis using subjects (various people - what's called a double-blind test) to see what percentage of the populace you test can reliably discern a difference between the two and which they say is better. A quick and dirrtty solution is to look at the two side by side and see for yourself.

When I have some spare time, I'll look at footage brought in via a component analog (YUV) vs. the same footage brought in via 1394 - and perform a split screen inspection. I don't have time to do the comparison right now. In any case, just by inspection, I have determined (by executive decision so to speak) that the footage brought in this way is good enough either way for what I want to do with it.

If 'I' had DigiBeta assets, I would try the same thing I have now - but via the SDI port of the DA-MAX+ instead of the component analog port.

actvman wrote on 10/4/2002, 7:07 AM

From what I understand VV is 4:4:4:4 (RGBA color space). I routinely take 4:2:2 MJPEG into VV, and get 4:2:2 back out. So 4:1:1 is not inherent in the core of VV, just in the particular format you are working with (DV)

Chris

John_Beech wrote on 10/7/2002, 8:56 AM

Whomever wrote the original piece is just yanking our chain. It's like asking which is better, a Honda Prelude with nitrous, or a Ferrari? Anybody with the funds for the Ferrari wouldn't ask such a stupid question - and it's hard for me to mention stupid questions due to a background as a professional educator, but sheesh, common pal, are you seriously wondering which produces a better image when all other factors (i.e. lighting comes to mind) are equal?????

Tyler.Durden wrote on 10/7/2002, 9:07 AM

Hi,

I don't think it's a troll situation, but a genuine inquiry.

I've visited the originator's site, and believe the inquiry stems from Vegas bringing powerful tools to users that are very new to video.

Trolls are inclined to argue (and I think we know who *they* are).

My .02

MPH