Frage von juergen78:
Hello!
I have many GB DV AVI material like this and would like a space-saving process. I have now decided for the following and you would ask me to say whether good or what would be better ...
-> MPEG2 (. Mpg)
-> 720 x 576 (= Orig)
-> 25 Frms / sec. (= Orig)
-> Interlaced (= Orig)
-> Approx bitrate 3000 kb / s
Sun and now the question .. MPEG encoder which, I have the following for Choice here on my calculator ...
-> MAGIX Video Deluxe 2007 PLUS
-> XMedia Recode (Freeware)
-> SUPER (freeware)
-> Avidemux (Freeware)
-> (Nero 7.0) in parentheses because I am therefore for such tasks NERO might somehow not.
What do you, well?
Thank you!
Juergen
Antwort von RickyMartini:
For archiving, I would not DV-AVI to MPEG2 file if, as the quality will suffer extreme - for 3MBit / s is the cruelest eh!
Leave it to DV and create more copies of it!
TB on a plate to get even 71h DV material (13GB / h).
To view MPEG2 is ideally suited, but not for archival purposes.
For HD material in MPEG2 which is again quite different.
Antwort von Debonnaire:
For HD material in MPEG2 which is again quite different. To what extent and why?
Antwort von Markus73:
If the material is ready to be cut is definitely no longer be changed and it only comes out later to be able to create DVDs, then I archive as synonymous (DVD-compliant) MPEG, albeit with a much higher data rate than 3 Mbit / s.
Otherwise no, because - as I said - MPEG for further processing is very poorly suited.
Regards,
Markus
Antwort von beiti:
For HD material in MPEG2 which is again quite different. No, not really. Only currently exist in the consumer sector nothing better than MPEG2 and AVCHD, which is why we are still with the strong compression to live. Better would be synonymous in the HD recording in a format that is in one frame and not so much compressed.
Antwort von juergen78:
So like MJPEG?
My concern is .. I have Super 8 images using DV cam directly into the PC from which captured and DVDs have already been made (cut, etc..). These DVDs, I have finished it and so as ISO images synonymous nor synonymous but s.Calculator the Rohmeterial. This is broke, so to speak (no idea if I ever need it) but I would delete it if not, that was 2 weeks working in the basement with the Abfilmerei. That's So ..
How is it with MJPEG, it would be quite sufficient if the files by 50% smaller, I do not always need 10% or so ;-)
But if there is nothing verbünftiges, then I let it, so the plates are always growing, currently have the stuff on a 500GB and which are of course an external 500GB for backup ;-)
Dake!
Juergen
Antwort von beiti:
These DVDs, I have finished it and so as ISO images synonymous nor synonymous but s.Calculator the Rohmeterial. This is broke, so to speak (no idea if I ever need it) but I would delete it if not, that was 2 weeks working in the basement with the Abfilmerei. That's So .. Then you can just as well on your ISO images you draw and save the additional archiving. Either you archivierst the original material in DV, or you can remain so. Twice MPEG2 Archive brings nothing.
How is it with MJPEG, it would be quite sufficient if the files by 50% smaller, I do not always need 10% or so ;-) With MJPEG Holst you get nothing, because that is not more effective than the DV Compression. Do not forget that the DV format itself by about a factor of 5 is compressed.
I then let it so, yes, the plates are always growing Just as it is.
Antwort von Burner87:
I do not know what you all did, the MPEG2 is worse than DV.
I archive my videos for years with MPEG2, because the films often afterwards anyway to watch a DVD is exactly the right format.
When you have 8 MBit third the size of the DV material. A DV cassette of 1 hours is accurate to a DVD on it. The quality at 3 Mbps mies, it is no wonder, since MPEG2 now look at a high bit rate is designed. Less than 3 Mbps can be given for most programs for good reason, do not adjust.
From 6 Mbit up the Picture is really good.
Antwort von beiti:
I do not know what you all did, the MPEG2 is worse than DV.
I archive my videos for years with MPEG2, because the films often afterwards anyway to watch a DVD is exactly the right format It is a question of handling reserves. As the presentation is being MPEG2 format with 6 + Mbit nothing. If we are planning no further processing the material and will only later burn to DVD, MPEG2 is an archive format perfectly adequate - because whether we like it now or later encoded, makes of the quality was not much difference.
If, however, a subsequent brightness or color correction makes the MPEG2 artifacts really stand out nicely. As a starting material for DV sowas is simply better suited.
Antwort von Debonnaire:
To view MPEG2 is ideally suited, but not for archival purposes.
For HD material in MPEG2 which is again quite different. Again: Why is the archiving as MPEG2 for HD material better / more useful than when DV material as MPEG2 archived want? That would really interest me!
Antwort von tommyb:
I fear he meant just HDV, which is already MPEG2 and drum, it is synonymous "something else".
Antwort von Debonnaire:
Ach so, "thought, as one knows what basics to me so far has remained closed! Pity that repeatedly semi sloppy and formulation lead to misunderstandings here ...
Antwort von RickyMartini:
I fear he meant just HDV, which is already MPEG2 and drum, it is synonymous "something else". Correct! :)
HDV (MPEG2 in 1440x1080 Native and 25MBit / s) nunmal plays in a totally different league. AVCHD and MPEG2 changed after s.35MBit / s quality is fairly decent as well - only a clear, the swelling the same.
Antwort von Cutter2009:
@ Juergen:
So I would nix as more convert or compress. But the burning gecaptureten DV Avi 's directly to several (data-) DVD-R's, then you have it archived. By how many GB of material is all about? Do not forget that a re-compression with a giant amount of DV material synonymous much time, because you're with a simple data backup to DVD a hundred times faster done.
Antwort von juergen78:
@ Juergen:
So I would nix as more convert or compress. But the burning gecaptureten DV Avi 's directly to several (data-) DVD-R's, then you have it archived. By how many GB of material is all about? Do not forget that a re-compression with a giant amount of DV material synonymous much time, because you're with a simple data backup to DVD a hundred times faster done. Oh yes it is eigenltich eh "only" about 170 GB of material, but then again it would be about 35 DVD.
Antwort von Markus73:
To complement would then have that for archiving DVDs probably unsuitable (because unreliable) are.
Regards,
Markus
