Re-encoded digital video

[ZJLI]

Thanks for the ticket, 'wolf

[ZJLI]

Originally Posted by vladsmythe

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.

Did you just paste this into multiple threads?

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

[Powderfinger]

You do realize whom you are dealing with, right??

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

[dementrium]

^^

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

[scratchie]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by direwolf-pgh

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]

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]

Originally Posted by scratchie

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]

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

[saltman]

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]

cool thanks for clearing that up salt. sometimes i get confused.

[AAR.oner]

Originally Posted by vladsmythe

Frankly, a mod using that type of language, I find shocking and reprehensible.

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]

Originally Posted by direwolf-pgh

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.

Originally Posted by direwolf-pgh

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.

Originally Posted by direwolf-pgh

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]

cool info.. thanks pawel

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