Latest post Fri, Aug 27 2010 1:04 AM by Mondo. 157 replies.
Page 10 of 11 (158 items) « First ... < Previous 7 8 9 10 11 Next >
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • Tue, Aug 17 2010 9:12 AM In reply to

    • mjolnarn
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on Wed, Feb 8 2006
    • Sweden
    • Posts 13,346
    • Points 159,345

    Re: Why not importing MPEG2

    Mondo:

     PAL DV is one of the few PAL codecs that IS LFF. Always has been. Nearly all other PAL codecs are UFF with th exception of DVC PRo I think.

    Quoted from the KB, latest codecs 2,2,1   , what are the specs of your project and how are the SD clips been brought into your project ?

    File Field Order
    This setting defines how the source material is interlaced.
    An odd, or upper-field ordering uses the first line of each frame for field one.
    An even, or lower-field ordering uses the first line of each frame for field two.

    NTSC 601/DV resolutions have an even (lower field first) ordering.
    PAL 601 resolutions have an odd (upper field first) ordering.
    PAL DV resolutions have an even (lower field first) ordering.
    1080i HD has an odd (upper field first) ordering.

    Mac: 17" Macbook Pro i7 2,66 ghz with 8Gb Ram, 500gb 7200rpm drive___ PC_NEW Win10 Pro Mbo Asus Rampage IV Black CPU Ivy Bridge-E 4960X ( = 12 x 4... [view my complete system specs]

    Tomas 

     

  • Tue, Aug 17 2010 9:46 AM In reply to

    • miky
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on Thu, Oct 13 2005
    • Posts 655
    • Points 8,270

    Re: Why not importing MPEG2

    mjolnarn:

    File Field Order
    This setting defines how the source material is interlaced.
    An odd, or upper-field ordering uses the first line of each frame for field one.
    An even, or lower-field ordering uses the first line of each frame for field two.

    NTSC 601/DV resolutions have an even (lower field first) ordering.
    PAL 601 resolutions have an odd (upper field first) ordering.
    PAL DV resolutions have an even (lower field first) ordering.
    1080i HD has an odd (upper field first) ordering.

    When 'they' started talking abouit HD standards, I caught myself dreaming of ONE format, which would have done without scan lines, weird frame rates or different frame sizes.

    I mean, why not? 'They' had the oportunity to come up with a 'world standard' (unlike what they did with SD), and make everybody's life (including theirs) easier.

    Well, it turns out they didn't even try, and my dream stayed just that.

    What I should have dreamt about is how much more money there is to be made with different standards.

    IMHO, of course.

     

     

    M.C.
  • Tue, Aug 17 2010 1:59 PM In reply to

    • jwrl
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on Thu, Oct 13 2005
    • Melbourne, Australia
    • Posts 8,392
    • Points 97,070

    Re: Why not importing MPEG2

    miky:
    When 'they' started talking abouit HD standards, I caught myself dreaming of ONE format
    You wouldn't have been alone.  The current mish-mash of HD so-called standards is a nightmare.

    For example, currently in Australia our free-to-air channels use 1440x1080/25p anamorphic, 1280x720/25p, 960x720/25p anamorphic, and a so-called HD standard of 1024x576/25p.  There also SD channels running 720x576/50i anamorphic 16:9 and one of 702x576/50i anamorphic 16:9.

    HD is the standard you have when you're not having a standard.

    MC 7.0.4 - Asus P6T Deluxe V2 mobo - Intel i7 920 2.66GHz - Windows 7 Ult64 SP1 - nVidia Quadro FX 1800 - 16 Gbyte low latency DDR3 RAM - Internal 8 Tb... [view my complete system specs]
  • Tue, Aug 17 2010 4:39 PM In reply to

    • miky
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on Thu, Oct 13 2005
    • Posts 655
    • Points 8,270

    Re: Why not importing MPEG2

    jwrl:
    currently in Australia our free-to-air channels use 1440x1080/25p anamorphic, 1280x720/25p, 960x720/25p anamorphic, and a so-called HD standard of 1024x576/25p.  There also SD channels running 720x576/50i anamorphic 16:9 and one of 702x576/50i anamorphic 16:9.

    Wow... Crickey! It almost makes me feel better to work in Europe and only have half the nightmare you're having.

    jwrl:
    HD is the standard you have when you're not having a standard.

    Add to the mix the various flavors of weird frame size choices from camera makers, and half a dozen 'standard' codecs, and I think we can safely say that the situation is worse than the SD world was/is.

    M.C.
  • Tue, Aug 17 2010 8:52 PM In reply to

    Re: Why not importing MPEG2

    miky:

    When 'they' started talking abouit HD standards, I caught myself dreaming of ONE format, which would have done without scan lines, weird frame rates or different frame sizes.

    I mean, why not? 'They' had the oportunity to come up with a 'world standard' (unlike what they did with SD), and make everybody's life (including theirs) easier.

    I have lost count of how many times that this sentiment has been posted over the last decade.

     

  • Tue, Aug 17 2010 9:20 PM In reply to

    Re: Why not importing MPEG2

    You mean a standard like long gop mpg stream @ 23,94 fr? Or uncompressed 50 fps? I guess establishing a world standard is causing as many problems because at least 30% of the time what you get will be the *wrong* world standard...

    i7 3.4 GHz | Asus HERO Z170 | 32GB Ram | Quadro k620 | Intensity Pro 4K | WIN7 64bit Pro [view my complete system specs]
  • Tue, Aug 17 2010 9:45 PM In reply to

    Re: Why not importing MPEG2

    Thomas Erichsen:
    You mean a standard like long gop mpg stream @ 23,94 fr? Or uncompressed 50 fps?
    No something really well thought out so it is not just a good idea for today but a solid foundation for the next 50 years of progress.

    Like standardise on a frame rate.  60 for instance as 60 is mathematically the most flexible for whole number division back to the legacy formats.  60 is also already a relatively standard LCD screen refresh rate.

    Screen size something around a square pixel 2K standard that will work for film and video and would work as a whole number fractions of todays 4K standard and futures 8K, 16k and 32K standards as we progress towards  CPU's 1,000,000 times faster than todays CPU's

    Think of it as planning a standard to provide steady incomes for generations rather than fast bucks for a couple of years.

  • Tue, Aug 17 2010 10:59 PM In reply to

    • miky
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on Thu, Oct 13 2005
    • Posts 655
    • Points 8,270

    Re: Why not importing MPEG2

    AndrewAction:
    I have lost count of how many times that this sentiment has been posted over the last decade.

    Lots of dreamers I guess.

    M.C.
  • Tue, Aug 17 2010 11:03 PM In reply to

    • miky
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on Thu, Oct 13 2005
    • Posts 655
    • Points 8,270

    Re: Why not importing MPEG2

    Thomas Erichsen:
    because at least 30% of the time

    Thomas Erichsen:
    With MC5, speed and reliability have decreased by 80%.

    'They' could have used a stats professional like you when 'they' decided what the standards would be Big Smile

     

    M.C.
  • Wed, Aug 25 2010 7:26 PM In reply to

    • Tom Hanson
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on Fri, Mar 14 2008
    • Palm Coast, Florida
    • Posts 18
    • Points 200

    Re: Why not importing MPEG2

    Our Municipal Television facility would benefit greatly if MC5 would import/digitize MPEG2 files.  We currently have 762 MPEG2 master files sitting on our playback server (and archived on DVD).  Until this year, our play-to-air system could only play MPEG2, thus making us an MPEG2 house!   In order to re-edit these MPEG2 files, we use ULEAD!  Fast and simple.  When these files have to go to either of our two MC systems, we push them through either ULEAD or AVS and convert to QT or Native DV, then import.

    Its ridiculous and embarrasing that Avid can't play with MPEG2.  Period. 

    Operating System System Model Windows XP Professional Service Pack 2 (build 2600) Intel Corporation Processor a Main Circuit Board b 2.40... [view my complete system specs]
    Tom Hanson Video Production Coordinator, TV199 www.pcma-tv199.org
  • Wed, Aug 25 2010 9:08 PM In reply to

    • Peter
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on Sat, Jun 26 2010
    • Arizona
    • Posts 6
    • Points 130

    Re: Why not importing MPEG2

    On the MC product page, Avid touts "Work with any format and integrate into any workflow."  They should include a qualifier: "As long as its QuickTime."

    True, one could use Squeeze (or a 3rd party app) to convert to QuickTime, but that results in files 7x larger than the original, plus there is the wait time.

    I realize that a lot of this thread has been about VOBs, which I don't work with, but the underlying issue is MPEG2, which scores of independent and documentary videographers do use. This is not a small issue concerning only a few home video buffs.

    MC5 -- Intel Core i7-860 2.8GHz -- ASUS P7P55D-E Intel P55 Motherboard -- 16GB DDR3 1600 -- OCZ Agility 60GB SSD system drive -- various SATA video drives... [view my complete system specs]
  • Wed, Aug 25 2010 9:36 PM In reply to

    Re: Why not importing MPEG2

    Peter:
    the underlying issue is MPEG2, which scores of independent and documentary videographers do use.

    It has been said before in this thread:  Acquisition MPEG-2 files are not the issue (XDCam is an acquisition MPEG-2).

    Kenton VanNatten | Avid Editor (for hire)

    "I am not obsessed... I'm detail-oriented"

  • Wed, Aug 25 2010 10:44 PM In reply to

    • editmk
    • Top 500 Contributor
    • Joined on Mon, Sep 10 2007
    • London
    • Posts 244
    • Points 3,365

    Re: Why not importing MPEG2

    Convert this to this then this will import to that fast.

    Tell you what, I just want to import a mpeg2 or a VOB or a FLV. In what is meant to be the top editing software available, is that too much to ask?

    HP XW8600 Dual Quad Core 3 Ghz Windows 8 16 Gigs of Ram 24TB of Raid 10 sata storage Media Composer 7 Matrox MX02 Mini [view my complete system specs]

    www.mikegreen.tv

  • Wed, Aug 25 2010 11:03 PM In reply to

    Re: Why not importing MPEG2

    editmk:
    what is meant to be the top editing software available, is that too much to ask?

    That's just it, Media Composer is editing software, not format conversion software.

    Kenton VanNatten | Avid Editor (for hire)

    "I am not obsessed... I'm detail-oriented"

  • Thu, Aug 26 2010 3:36 AM In reply to

    • Peter
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on Sat, Jun 26 2010
    • Arizona
    • Posts 6
    • Points 130

    Re: Why not importing MPEG2

    Ok, Kenton, you're just parsing words now. If MC couldn't convert anything, it wouldn't be able to edit anything either. All digital video goes through a conversion process.

    To those who say they are tired of discussing this "for the past 10 years," or whatever, you don't need to follow these threads (just as you say those who are trying to resolve this problem didn't need to buy MC). I for one was duped by the seductive promise of "work with any format, integrate into any workflow."

    To those who want to make labored arguments about why our needs are not worthy of MC, we don't really need that either.

    If people have something germane to actually contribute that constructively helps to solve this issue, I would love to hear from you. A step by step guide to efficent and effective workflow using MPEG2 that doesn't suck up precious time and inordinate disc space would give me a reason to stop contemplating selling my copy of MC on eBay. Aside from that, I'm finding it hard to justify keeping it.

    MC5 -- Intel Core i7-860 2.8GHz -- ASUS P7P55D-E Intel P55 Motherboard -- 16GB DDR3 1600 -- OCZ Agility 60GB SSD system drive -- various SATA video drives... [view my complete system specs]
Page 10 of 11 (158 items) « First ... < Previous 7 8 9 10 11 Next >

© Copyright 2011 Avid Technology, Inc.  Terms of Use |  Privacy Policy |  Site Map |  Find a Reseller