PDA

View Full Version : Re-encoded digital video


scratchie
2008-05-14, 04:34 PM
I'm not sure if this is the right forum for this, but I hope you'll bear with me.

I'm wondering whether TTD should ban re-encoded digital video (at least for recent broadcasts). Take a look at this torrent:

http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=58350

Looks like a great show, right? But then take a look at this comment:

http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showpost.php?p=869043&postcount=13

In other words, this was a digital broadcast that consisted of 2.5GB of data. The person who posted this version of it re-encoded it and bloated it up to 4.25GB of data while reducing the video quality (by re-encoding it). The audio has also been bloated up to LPCM when it certainly wasn't transmitted that way to begin with.

Now, I don't know about you, but I'd rather download a 2.5GB version of a show with better-quality video, than a 4.25GB version with poorer-quality video. For people who are on slower connections (e.g. DSL, which I was using until very recently), this is extremely important.

Now I'm not, in general, a "tech-spec queen". I like to download a show and enjoy it for the pleasure the music gives me.

But there's no denying that better-quality video will usually yield more enjoyment. And TTD is a torrent site that's dedicated to only torrenting the highest-quality versions of each show. You know, "Quality is not an option in the seeds here, it will be the standard."

So it seems to me, that it's time to make a new standard. If it's being transmitted digitally, you need to capture it digitally, without re-encoding it (i.e. DVB-S or DVB-T), or don't torrent it here. Obviously there would need to be some sort of cut-off date, with old transmissions grandfathered.

What do you all think?

schmoe75
2008-05-14, 06:30 PM
The video wasn't re-encoded. The audio was converted from AC3 to LPCM which accounts for the 'bloated' size. AC3 audio converted to LPCM, though accomplishes nothing since its lossy sourced, is not a problem as long as the video isn't re-encoded.

scratchie
2008-05-14, 09:52 PM
According to these links:

http://www.unbeatable.co.uk/product/Thomson-DTH8000-DVD-Recorder/22398906.html

http://www.epinions.com/Thomson_DTH8000_DVD

The only inputs on the Thomson DTH8000 are S-Video and composite. So that means the video was converted to analog by the satellite box and then converted back to digital by the DVD recorder.

Also, note that the difference in size between the two versions is 1.75GB. PCM audio is about 10MB per minute, so even if the original version had no audio track at all, adding 96 minutes of LPCM audio wouldn't have increased the size by more than a gig.

More to the point, even if this one particular video were not, in fact, re-encoded, there are certainly others out there which are. I'm no expert, but I can't imagine that consumer-grade standalone dvd recorders are set up to make perfect digital clones of broadcast material.

It seems to me that for a site that's committed to the highest possible quality, sooner or later you're going to want to ban such recordings (for new broadcasts), the same way you've banned new minidisc recordings.

vladsmythe
2008-05-14, 10:26 PM
scratchie, as usual you make a compelling case. How do you do it?
vlad (itchie)

scratchie
2008-05-14, 10:33 PM
scratchie, as usual you make a compelling case. How do you do it?Clean living.

pawel
2008-05-15, 05:37 AM
The video wasn't re-encoded.
Schmoe, all standalone recorders re-encode video according to setting: XP, SP, LP etc. You can get not re-encoded video only via a PVR and DVB (S/T/C) PC card. Standalone re-encodes audio as well to AC3 or LPCM at higher quality setting.

Taking the example given by Scratchie: BR-alpha bitrate is no higher than 3500 kbps average, while from standalone it's over 8000 kbps.

schmoe75
2008-05-15, 08:12 AM
I've advocated banning standalone transfers from the site all together, but there aren't enough staff members who agree with me so its not going to happen anytime soon.

scratchie
2008-05-15, 08:48 AM
I've advocated banning standalone transfers from the site all together, but there aren't enough staff members who agree with me so its not going to happen anytime soon.I don't think a solution that extreme would be necessary. I'm sure there's a lot of great stuff lurking people's shoeboxes on VHS that could be transferred via standalone and shared.

But for current digital transmissions, I don't think it would be too outrageous to require a pure-digital capture. I suspect that a lot of people with standalone burners don't realize that they're doing the equivalent of MP3 -> audio CD -> MP3, and would be happy to let someone with better equipment capture any given show (or upgrade their own equipment, if that's an option).

COLOGNESHARK
2008-05-15, 09:01 AM
The video wasn't re-encoded.
Schmoe, all standalone recorders re-encode video according to setting: XP, SP, LP etc. You can get not re-encoded video only via a PVR and DVB (S/T/C) PC card. Standalone re-encodes audio as well to AC3 or LPCM at higher quality setting.

Taking the example given by Scratchie: BR-alpha bitrate is no higher than 3500 kbps average, while from standalone it's over 8000 kbps.

that's right pawel ;)

vladsmythe
2008-05-15, 09:12 AM
I've advocated banning standalone transfers from the site all together, but there aren't enough staff members who agree with me so its not going to happen anytime soon.I don't think a solution that extreme would be necessary. I'm sure there's a lot of great stuff lurking people's shoeboxes on VHS that could be transferred via standalone and shared.

But for current digital transmissions, I don't think it would be too outrageous to require a pure-digital capture. I suspect that a lot of people with standalone burners don't realize that they're doing the equivalent of MP3 -> audio CD -> MP3, and would be happy to let someone with better equipment capture any given show (or upgrade their own equipment, if that's an option).

Every video from the Graceful Duck Archive is captured with a standalone at the highest bitrate possible. Let's not let the desires of one advocate stop the flow of quality content that benefits those who enjoy it. The Graceful Duck Archive - "More than a collection...a way of life."

scratchie
2008-05-15, 09:16 AM
Every video from the Graceful Duck Archive is captured with a standalone at the highest bitrate possible. Let's not let the desires of one advocate stop the flow of quality content that benefits those who enjoy it. The Graceful Duck Archive - "More than a collection...a way of life."Yeah, exactly. I don't think it makes any sense to ban standalones altogether, just for current digitally-broadcast content.

vladsmythe
2008-05-15, 09:21 AM
The title (and premise) of this thread is "Re-encoded digital video", not "Digitized historical analogue beta video".:lol4:

schmoe75
2008-05-15, 11:59 AM
I don't think a solution that extreme would be necessary. I'm sure there's a lot of great stuff lurking people's shoeboxes on VHS that could be transferred via standalone and shared.
So its ok to transfer analog the worst way possible but not acceptable for digital? That makes perfect sense. :rolleyes:
Let's not let the desires of one advocate stop the flow of quality content that benefits those who enjoy it.
Apparently reading is something else you have trouble with. I'm not the only advocate.

vladsmythe
2008-05-15, 12:09 PM
schmoe, I'm not going to address this any further until you clean up your language and proceed in a civil manner suited to The Traders Den community.:lol4:

direwolf-pgh
2008-05-15, 12:25 PM
tell him how it is vlad. standalone recorders rock

vladsmythe
2008-05-15, 12:27 PM
Frankly, a mod using that type of language, I find shocking and reprehensible.:disbelief

direwolf-pgh
2008-05-15, 12:28 PM
it is indeed a sad day in VBT. where is the love for the video. whats become of the baby

Alex231
2008-05-15, 12:30 PM
:popcorn:

Thanks for the ticket, 'wolf :thumbsup

Alex231
2008-05-15, 12:33 PM
schmoe, I'm not going to address this any further until you clean up your language and proceed in a civil manner suited to The Traders Den community.:lol4:

:hmm: Did you just paste this into multiple threads?

I could have sworn i just read the exact same thing in another thread....

Powderfinger
2008-05-15, 12:39 PM
You do realize whom you are dealing with, right??

Next, you can expect a thread started about it...

:cool:

dementrium
2008-05-15, 12:48 PM
^^ :thumbsup

Yes. It would be a perfect time for a brand new thread in the Site Suggestions area.

scratchie
2008-05-15, 12:52 PM
So its ok to transfer analog the worst way possible but not acceptable for digital? Yeah, exactly. What part of this is confusing you?

Digital video == does not need to be re-encoded.

Analog video == does need to be encoded, one way or another.

Given a choice between a DVD of a 20-year-old videotape encoded on a standalone and no DVD at all, I know which one I'd choose.

Apparently reading is something else you have trouble with. I'm not the only advocate dumbfuck.Ah, yes, another example of the legendary Trader's Den charm[tm].

direwolf-pgh
2008-05-15, 01:03 PM
question on this digital > standalone transcoding

is the transcoding not unlike converting .shn to .flac ?

is there truly a signal quality loss ? I would guess there is no video loss if digital signal > hard drive >standalone recorder

enlighten please

(the ac3 < LPCM audio is simple..i get that part)

scratchie
2008-05-15, 01:10 PM
question on this digital > standalone transcoding

is the transcoding not unlike converting .shn to .flac ?No, it is unlike converting SHN to FLAC.

is there truly a signal quality loss ? I would guess there is no video loss..See above. The only inputs on the standalone are analog. So it's like taking a SHN disc, burning it to audio CD, playing the CD and then capturing that analog audio to hard drive and converting *that* to FLAC. Except that the format in question (MPEG-2) is lossy, unlike SHN, FLAC and PCM.

So there's definitely signal quality loss, and, as a "bonus", the resultant version is 70% larger than the original, superior version.

direwolf-pgh
2008-05-15, 01:14 PM
hmmm... Ill have to take your word for it. that doesnt sound lossy to me.

are you saying if the standalone had a digital signal port then all would be well ?

the loss is in the cables ? na. im not sold yet. I need proof & a link.

we are talking lines of resolution here. i doubt that lines of resolution are lost.

I understand the D/A converter part...but tell me about your stereo system - do you run direct digital to the speakers ?

are you running direct digital back into your television ? there are always converters.

i already stated that everyone understands the sound part (if it captures LPCM then all is well)...what about the video resolution ?

help me out - i need a clue on this

saltman
2008-05-15, 01:28 PM
Given a choice between a DVD of a 20-year-old videotape encoded on a standalone and no DVD at all, I know which one I'd choose. I'd rather have it computer transferred with proper menus, customized maxxed out bitrates, etc.

Many standalones have firewire and can be in the digital domain. Although some of them go D>A>D internally for some reason, it is not true that they only have analog inputs.

I am one of the opinion that they are of little value and should be banned. They are allowed primarily to increase what is available with the idea that the people that use them can't afford or have the time for a better transfer. That does potentially conflict with other objectives of the site and is constantly being discussed.

Back to the original point of discussion. I agree and IMO it should be looked at carefully in Staff Discussion. Not that the discussion should end here. I just wanted you to know that we are constantly looking into improving and discussing things in staff threads.

direwolf-pgh
2008-05-15, 01:38 PM
the bottom line sounds like..there is no loss in resolution. it is not lossy video.

there are more variables of quality issues with a computer workstation than a standalone.
i see video capture cards ranging from $50 to $1500... they cant all be the same quality
or is NTSC/PAL so low grade video it doesnt matter :hmm:

saltman
2008-05-15, 01:40 PM
If done properly. correct. However, you are limited to essentially no menus with random chapter breaks and predetermined bitrates that may not be appropriate to the material being input.

In the example that the thread is discussing. you are potentially incorrect depending on the model. The video could have been needlessly reduced.

direwolf-pgh
2008-05-15, 01:48 PM
cool :thumbsup thanks for clearing that up salt. sometimes i get confused.

AAR.oner
2008-05-15, 02:44 PM
Frankly, a mod using that type of language, I find shocking and reprehensible.:disbelief

thats a load of hog shit and you know it Sybil!

if you wanna start yet another drama fest in a non-Lounge forum, and in a technical discussion at that, at least do so using technical arguments

pawel
2008-05-15, 02:56 PM
the loss is in the cables ?
No, the loss is at an internal converter, before standalone writes signal to HD or a DVD disc. The video part is not a big problem, at least when a low and average quality broadcast is blew up to a higher bitrate. Visual degradation is hardly visible - usually video is not as sharp as the source. Many standalone recorders, however, cannot capture pure 16:9 aspect ratio, making it 4:3.

are you running direct digital back into your television ? there are always converters.
PVR and DVB cards are directly connected to antenna/tuner, not to TV (signal). They work something like downloading a zip file from Internet, they catch transport stream which may not only contain video and multiple audio but also subtitles, electronic program guide, text info etc.

i already stated that everyone understands the sound part (if it captures LPCM then all is well)
Not always. LPCM signal is broadcast by analog terrestrial TV only. All TV channels on satellite and terrestrial DVB use MP2 and/or AC3 compression. HD TV may use Advance Audio Compression format.

direwolf-pgh
2008-05-15, 03:16 PM
cool info.. thanks pawel

i was reading up on this site as well: http://www.dolby.com/professional/pro_audio_engineering/solutions_digitaltv.html

i dont believe you can argue a video is lossy due to D/A converters..
if we go down that route then everything should be banned as lossy.
is it possible for digital video or audio files to not be processed by D/A converters?
it just strikes me as unrealistic.

help me out if this thought is out-of-sync

AAR.oner
2008-05-15, 03:16 PM
i'm not for banning SA transfers entirely, yet...its still far more accessible and cost/time efficient for most, i know many tapers who still use them for seeding out their masters...but i can see the point when it comes to digi sat broadcasts...we should probly discuss that in staff

[i will say i don't record off of tv and i'd never buy a SA DVD recorder, so my knowledge re: the current technologies is a bit lacking...i do know there's far too many variations these days in broadcast streams/quality]

scratchie
2008-05-15, 03:18 PM
i dont believe you can argue a video is lossy due to D/A converters..
if we go down that route then everything should be banned as lossy.
it just strikes me as unrealistic.

It's not because of the d/a conversion; it's because you're taking a compressed format, de-compressing it (to analog) and then re-compressing it. It's the same as if you played an MP3, then captured that analog audio stream and converted it back to MP3.

vladsmythe
2008-05-15, 03:26 PM
Makes sense to me scratchmeister.:cool:

direwolf-pgh
2008-05-15, 03:27 PM
It's not because of the d/a conversion; it's because you're taking a compressed format, de-compressing it (to analog) and then re-compressing it. It's the same as if you played an MP3, then captured that analog audio stream and converted it back to MP3.i dont believe this analogy is correct. mpeg2 is compression by definition...
your statement makes it sound like they convert to divx and back..
this is not the case to my understanding. there is NO analog tuner being used..its a digital firewire/usb connection from source to burner

Makes sense to me scratchmeister.:cool: another clue there is an issue with your statement.

vladsmythe
2008-05-15, 03:38 PM
ZOINKERS! :wtf:

scratchie
2008-05-15, 03:57 PM
its a digital firewire/usb connection from source to burnerNo, it's not. Go back and read the third post in this thread.

direwolf-pgh
2008-05-15, 03:58 PM
its a digital firewire/usb connection from source to burnerNo, it's not. Go back and read the third post in this thread.sorry.. Im not speaking about that seed in particular.. I/we were speaking of standalone recorders in general.

I thought we were :hmm: maybe it was just me.

as to your point/question..see the second post
The video wasn't re-encoded. The audio was converted from AC3 to LPCM which accounts for the 'bloated' size. AC3 audio converted to LPCM, though accomplishes nothing since its lossy sourced, is not a problem as long as the video isn't re-encoded.

direwolf-pgh
2008-05-15, 04:06 PM
whats wrong with S-Video :hmm: i dont understand your point scratchie.

this is not a 1080p seed - it matters not.

digital satellite box & HDTV..two very different things.

scratchie
2008-05-15, 04:21 PM
whats wrong with S-Video :hmm: i dont understand your point scratchie.Obviously not. My point is that S-Video is still analog, and when you're receiving a digital transmission -- i.e., an MPEG-2 file -- there's no reason to convert it to analog and then convert it back to a larger, inferior MPEG-2 file.

this is not a 1080p seed - it matters not.Maybe not to you, but it matters to some of us. By the same logic, you could say "This isn't a digital soundboard, what does it matter if I posted a version that was converted from MP3?"

digital satellite box & HDTV..two very different things.No kidding, but there's still no reason to take the MPEG-2 file being transmitted via satellite, then convert it to analog, then convert it to a larger, inferior MPEG-2 file. I don't know how many times I can say the same thing.

direwolf-pgh
2008-05-15, 04:27 PM
scratchie.. i dont know much, but i know you're wrong :D

S-Video, as most commonly implemented, carries 480i or 576i resolution video, i.e. standard definition video, but does not carry audio on the same cable.
there is no loss in the cable for the lines of resolution.

IF it was a HDTV broadcast (which you couldnt capture anyway due to DRM on satellite box), then converted to PAL... yeah, that could be considered lossy..i guess.

but that isnt the case, is it? its a PAL signal & its still a PAL signal.
there is no loss in the signal. S-video patch is fine for the task.

please prove me wrong please.

scratchie
2008-05-15, 05:25 PM
please prove me wrong please.

Sorry, life's too short.

schmoe75
2008-05-15, 06:21 PM
Given a choice between a DVD of a 20-year-old videotape encoded on a standalone and no DVD at all, I know which one I'd choose.
Why does the same logic not apply to a digi broadcast?
Who says because it was aired last week that it was recorded in any format other than a standalone or that you will ever see it?

In the end, all mpeg2's are lossy, so we might as well just close VBT until everything is being released as authored .avi & .ts on blu-ray.

schmoe75
2008-05-15, 06:26 PM
i see video capture cards ranging from $50 to $1500... they cant all be the same quality
Nope they aren't the same and what's the next requirement? You can only seed here if you capture with "X" card, "X" software, "X" settings for render, etc...
is NTSC so low grade video it doesnt matter
Yes, Never The Same Color sux monkey balls.

vladsmythe
2008-05-15, 06:27 PM
Hey, don't drag me into this squabble. I just share my stuff. Nobody has to download it. It's their choice. My vids look okay to me, and so far people like to watch them. So I really don't care what tech people (who don't watch them) think. Thank you schmoe for cleaning up the language.

schmoe75
2008-05-15, 06:32 PM
Obviously not. My point is that S-Video is still analog, and when you're receiving a digital transmission -- i.e., an MPEG-2 file -- there's no reason to convert it to analog and then convert it back to a larger, inferior MPEG-2 file.

No kidding, but there's still no reason to take the MPEG-2 file being transmitted via satellite, then convert it to analog, then convert it to a larger, inferior MPEG-2 file. I don't know how many times I can say the same thing.
That's a valid point and part of why I'm for banning them from the site all together, but again...

Maybe not to you, but it matters to some of us.
The irony that you propose a 'standard' for digital capture but have no standards for old analogs.

vladsmythe
2008-05-15, 06:43 PM
I'm sorry, but I don't think the concept of analogue tape to digital conversion should fall into a thread titled "Re-encoded digital video". I'm not re-encoding from tape, I'm encoding. There is a big difference. It seems any dummy would know that.

pawel
2008-05-15, 06:49 PM
i dont believe you can argue a video is lossy due to D/A converters..
MPEG2 is lossy format, and as such any meddling in frame structure and bitrate must be done by re-compression and compression. It doesn't (much) matter if it is D>A>D or D>D.

if we go down that route then everything should be banned as lossy.
It is lossy but there is no other source unless we have Robin Hood representatives in all TV stations :D
is it possible for digital video or audio files to not be processed by D/A converters?
Jesus, man, read above: PVR and DVB cards.

direwolf-pgh
2008-05-15, 07:06 PM
i dont believe you can argue a video is lossy due to D/A converters..
MPEG2 is lossy format, and as such any meddling in frame structure and bitrate must be done by re-compression and compression. It doesn't (much) matter if it is D>A>D or D>D.


It is lossy but there is no other source unless we have Robin Hood representatives in all TV stations :D
is it possible for digital video or audio files to not be processed by D/A converters?
Jesus, man, read above: PVR and DVB cards.
jesus, man what ? am i frustrating you ? :) so sorry.

all these points have already been made.. i dont believe you've read every post.

IMO this entire digital mumbojumbo is just that. a big waste of talk.
yeah...most everything in digital video is currently lossy at some point in the chain.

points we've gone over so far:

1. your MPEG files ...lossy
2. ac3..... lossy
3. D/A converters... eh, lossy kinda.. but not really.. but kinda.
4. there is ZERO signal quality lost transferring standard PAL via a S-Video cable
5. give it 3-5 more years & then we talk/trade lossless video
6. 72mm film still pwns.
7. my steak dinner fucking rocked
8. I forget what eight was for.
9. Nine..Nine for my lost GOD
10. ten..ten..ten. TEN! For everything! everything! everything! everything !!

:wave:

schmoe75
2008-05-15, 07:22 PM
give it 3-5 more years & then we talk/trade lossless video
I think it'll be much sooner than that.

scratchie
2008-05-15, 10:56 PM
Given a choice between a DVD of a 20-year-old videotape encoded on a standalone and no DVD at all, I know which one I'd choose.
Why does the same logic not apply to a digi broadcast?
Because, with an obscure 20-year-old videotape, the chances are pretty slim that there's an alternate source. With a current digital broadcast, there are, hypothetically, lots of different TTD members who could capture it. I hope this helps clear up your confusion.

Who says because it was aired last week that it was recorded in any format other than a standalone or that you will ever see it? At some TV-oriented torrent sites, people plan in advance who is going to capture what show, so that the members know that they're going to get a high-quality capture. If sites that specialize in Xvid uploads can go to that trouble, why can't TTD?

In the end, all mpeg2's are lossy, so we might as well just close VBT until everything is being released as authored .avi & .ts on blu-ray.Well excuse the fuck out of me for trying to propose a way of improving the overall quality of videos at a site which claims to value high standards of quality above all else.

vladsmythe
2008-05-15, 11:55 PM
scratchie, they won't get your point. The bottom line is, I have the shit. I can share it from the source that I collected it 30 years ago, or I can choose not to because it dosen't conform to some new-fangled spec. I'm gonna go with "share the stuff". Never had a complaint yet. Ever been to Bull Shoals? Ozarks. Killer trout fishing on the White River. None of this bull....just fishing, time, and tunes.... I say get it out at any cost...tear down the walls...content is everything.

pawel
2008-05-16, 05:14 AM
jesus, man what ? am i frustrating you ? :) so sorry.
You don't but you ask questions which were already answered.

5. give it 3-5 more years & then we talk/trade lossless video
I don't think so as there is nothing at the horizon providing very high compression which is not lossy. New HD standard uses lossy H.264 codec, and it's at entry point. So, maybe 10-15 years ;-)

AAR.oner
2008-05-16, 06:55 AM
5. give it 3-5 more years & then we talk/trade lossless video
I don't think so as there is nothing at the horizon providing very high compression which is not lossy. New HD standard uses lossy H.264 codec, and it's at entry point. So, maybe 10-15 years ;-)

i agree, there's really no evidence of any "lossless" codecs being actively developed...in all honesty, i haven't really seen anything in the industry that would point to any interest in something like that

schmoe75
2008-05-16, 12:10 PM
Because, with an obscure 20-year-old videotape, the chances are pretty slim that there's an alternate source.
I'll be sure to pass along to the Dead peeps that its a waste of their time & energy to transfer the tapes properly and upgrade the audio, because you're fine with a standalone capture & cam audio. :rolleyes:
With a current digital broadcast, there are, hypothetically, lots of different TTD members who could capture it. I hope this helps clear up your confusion.
The show that brought this all up to begin with was only 5 years ago. How many different sources are circulating?

At some TV-oriented torrent sites, people plan in advance who is going to capture what show, so that the members know that they're going to get a high-quality capture. If sites that specialize in Xvid uploads can go to that trouble, why can't TTD?
We aren't a tv oriented site for one and the very few peeps who actually capture tv broadcasts correctly are already doing so whether you ever see it or not.

scratchie
2008-05-16, 12:18 PM
Because, with an obscure 20-year-old videotape, the chances are pretty slim that there's an alternate source.
I'll be sure to pass along to the Dead peeps that its a waste of their time & energy to transfer the tapes properly and upgrade the audio, because you're fine with a standalone capture & cam audio. :rolleyes:
It may astonish you to discover that there are actually more obscure bootlegged artists than the Grateful Dead.

schmoe75
2008-05-16, 12:22 PM
"obscure bootlegged artists"....great excuse for having no standard for analog.

U2Lynne
2008-05-16, 12:23 PM
At some TV-oriented torrent sites, people plan in advance who is going to capture what show, so that the members know that they're going to get a high-quality capture. If sites that specialize in Xvid uploads can go to that trouble, why can't TTD?
You are welcome to start a thread and try and get TV captures organized. I think it's a good idea, I'm just not sure what the best way, or place, is for this to get organized.

scratchie
2008-05-16, 12:42 PM
At some TV-oriented torrent sites, people plan in advance who is going to capture what show, so that the members know that they're going to get a high-quality capture. If sites that specialize in Xvid uploads can go to that trouble, why can't TTD?
You are welcome to start a thread and try and get TV captures organized. I think it's a good idea, I'm just not sure what the best way, or place, is for this to get organized.What's the point? There doesn't seem to be any interest in improving the quality of anything but GD audience videos around here.

direwolf-pgh
2008-05-16, 01:24 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless_data_compression

we are already there

vladsmythe
2008-05-16, 02:14 PM
Because, with an obscure 20-year-old videotape, the chances are pretty slim that there's an alternate source.
I'll be sure to pass along to the Dead peeps that its a waste of their time & energy to transfer the tapes properly and upgrade the audio, because you're fine with a standalone capture & cam audio. :rolleyes:

The show that brought this all up to begin with was only 5 years ago. How many different sources are circulating?

At some TV-oriented torrent sites, people plan in advance who is going to capture what show, so that the members know that they're going to get a high-quality capture. If sites that specialize in Xvid uploads can go to that trouble, why can't TTD?
We aren't a tv oriented site for one and the very few peeps who actually capture tv broadcasts correctly are already doing so whether you ever see it or not.

schmoemeister, how do you upgrade the sound on a Grateful Dead video that's 20 years old, say West 57th or The Today Show. Wouldn't that be kind of ....STUPID?:lol4: Standalones work great for that.:thumbsup

bot
2008-05-16, 03:30 PM
New HD standard uses lossy H.264 codec, and it's at entry point. So, maybe 10-15 years ;-)

i agree, there's really no evidence of any "lossless" codecs being actively developed...in all honesty, i haven't really seen anything in the industry that would point to any interest in something like that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless_data_compression

we are already there no lossless video codecs huh ? I beg to differ.

direwolf-pgh
2008-05-16, 04:53 PM
:hmm: why is H.264/MPEG-4 AVC listed as lossless & lossy - i couldnt find a decent explanation.

scratchie
2008-05-16, 05:09 PM
:hmm: why is H.264/MPEG-4 AVC listed as lossless & lossy - i couldnt find a decent explanation.Probably because Wikipedia is only fact-checked by insomniacs and the chronically underemployed.

direwolf-pgh
2008-05-16, 05:24 PM
:hmm: why is H.264/MPEG-4 AVC listed as lossless & lossy - i couldnt find a decent explanation.Probably because Wikipedia is only fact-checked by insomniacs and the chronically underemployed.thats not much of an answer either "mr. i want better standards now" :mellow: anybody else ?

direwolf-pgh
2008-05-16, 05:59 PM
ok the simple answer is "it depends on what data rate you select to use with the codec"
blu-ray..lossless... streaming.. lossy

pretty cool algorithm.. double the compression ratio of MPEG2 without loss.

ok. im done with this read. :)

schmoe75
2008-05-16, 06:43 PM
What's the point? There doesn't seem to be any interest in improving the quality of anything but GD audience videos around here.
Where did anyone say that?
I have simply pointed out that its ironic that you propose a standard for new broadcasts but could care less how old tapes are transferred.

scratchie
2008-05-16, 06:45 PM
Where did anyone say that?
I have simply pointed out that its ironic that you propose a standard for new broadcasts but could care less how old tapes are transferred.I don't think you understand the meaning of the word 'irony'.

schmoe75
2008-05-16, 06:47 PM
schmoemeister, how do you upgrade the sound on a Grateful Dead video that's 20 years old
You take the exisiting external audio and synch it.
say West 57th or The Today Show. Wouldn't that be kind of ....STUPID?:lol4: Standalones work great for that.:thumbsup
With a proper transfer and the audio being in LPCM vs the compressed to hell AC3 that is currently happening with your transfers.

I'm sorry that your hearing is so poor that you can't tell the difference between the same audio as lossless LPCM 1.5 Mbs vs crappy AC3 at 256 kbs :rolleyes:

schmoe75
2008-05-16, 06:48 PM
I don't think you understand the meaning of the word 'irony'.
Probably not, but the point is still valid.

vladsmythe
2008-05-16, 07:22 PM
My hearing is fine, I just don't think spoken word videos require LPCM. Besides, I don't want to spend any money on a better standalone right now, between my 3 week trip to Australia, a new driveway, my son's college and our family cruise around the Greek Isles later this year...I'm hurtin' bro! If you don't like them don't download them. But many people do. Thank you for entertaining us during these trying times (HC down). You have helped many of us through HC withdrawl anguish.:lol4:

AAR.oner
2008-05-17, 05:40 AM
New HD standard uses lossy H.264 codec, and it's at entry point. So, maybe 10-15 years ;-)



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless_data_compression

we are already there no lossless video codecs huh ? I beg to differ.

i was referring to the film world--there is no viable lossless video codec being pursued at this point

H.264 is not truly lossless, no matter what bit rate you choose [technically no digi video is lossless, but thats a whole nother discussion i have no interest in arguing]...sure there's lossless compression thats been created, HuffYUV and what not, but they're just fringe codecs really...the film industry, which dictates standards/norms, has shown little or no interest in using them

i'll also note, the accuracy of the info in that link isn't exactly spot on...hell, they have ATRAC listed as "Advanced Lossless" audio :roflol: :roflol:

AAR.oner
2008-05-17, 05:49 AM
:hmm: why is H.264/MPEG-4 AVC listed as lossless & lossy - i couldnt find a decent explanation.Probably because Wikipedia is only fact-checked by insomniacs and the chronically underemployed.

:lol4: :thumbsup

scratchie
2008-05-17, 11:56 AM
I don't think you understand the meaning of the word 'irony'.
Probably not, but the point is still valid.Not really.

"It's ironic that you put ketchup on your hamburgers, but not filet mignon."

"It's ironic that you toss that cheap Mexican Strat in the back of your pickup with no case, but you don't do the same with your '59 Les Paul."

"It's ironic that you'll watch Star Trek reruns on that 12" black & white TV, but you won't watch Lawrence of Arabia on it."

etc.

direwolf-pgh
2008-05-17, 12:33 PM
no lossless video codecs huh ? I beg to differ.

i was referring to the film world--there is no viable lossless video codec being pursued at this point

H.264 is not truly lossless, no matter what bit rate you choose [technically no digi video is lossless, but thats a whole nother discussion i have no interest in arguing]...i'll also note, the accuracy of the info in that link isn't exactly spot on...hell, they have ATRAC listed as "Advanced Lossless" audio :roflol: :roflol::mellow: cause it is. ATRAC Advanced Lossess is... lossless.
i enjoy wiki for a broad overview, but when I wish to learn more Ill search.
technobabble is often giving wiki a run for its money on mis-information

i have the feeling no one is reading the technical White Papers :( so sad.

AAR.oner
2008-05-18, 11:18 AM
i stand corrected, i read it as ATRAC being described as an advanced form of lossless compression...not their new-est(?) codec...looks like the wolf pwns me again :lol:

but i still stand by my statement that i've personally seen no evidence of the film/video world switching to a lossless form of compression, especially not in the near future...wish it were so, but doubtful imo