Capturing back off a DVD

Discussion in 'Video Cameras' started by Paul, May 4, 2004.

  1. Paul

    John Russell Guest

    He's a second-rate clutz whose only purpose in life is being right even at
    I presume most people have him in their kill files which is why when I get
    sucked into an argument no one supports my case. I guess I must learn to
    ignore his posts, but the problem is he often advises the most long winded
    and out of date solution you feel you should post something so that at least
    the OP learns something even if he dosn't!
    John Russell, May 9, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Paul

    Dave R Guest

    I'm not so sure. I've had a few run ins with him, but can't be bothered
    to KF him. Sometimes he comes out with stuff worth reading, sometimes he
    gets stuck in blinkered mode, and carries on regardless. Plus, there's
    the case that you point out below.
    I've had the same. Maybe people don't have the time or information to
    jump on in. It's one thing to think that someone is wrong, but another to
    dive in and join an argument.
    Yep, hence not KFing him allows one to point out his errors, whether he
    listens or not.
    Dave R, May 10, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Paul

    wishy Guest

    I do know that he's used these exact same frames to prove a point in
    another *debate*.

    wishy, May 10, 2004
  4. Paul

    Tony Morgan Guest

    For a "starting point" for both tests, I began by using an original DV
    clip (MiniDV) into Vegas 4, produced DVD compatible MPEG-2 in Vegas,
    then used DVD Architect to burn a DVD-R on my Matshita LF-D311 burner.
    The "original" is one that I consistently use for comparative tests
    since it shows detail (resolution) through the hair texture and
    colour/contrast through the skin tones.

    I did as John suggested (for test1B) - extract the MPEG-2 from the VOB
    using Movie/Factory (I couldn't use Eve since I haven't got it (I hadn't
    even heard of it), then imported it into Vegas 4. Then did the frame
    capture (as a still) saving as a JPG at the lowest compression setting
    to avoid degrading the resulting image for comparison. I did no tweaking
    whatsoever, using the (best) defaults in Vegas. IMHO if you are going to
    "tweak" anything then your are going to distort any results.

    For test1A, I ran the DVD-R in my Pacific 1002 DVD player, took off the
    analogue via the SCART and adapter into the analogue input of my Sony
    TRV30, capturing (DV) via firewire into Vegas 4. I then captured the JPG
    from that clip at the same frame as used in test1B.

    I should add that if anyone want to do things a different way then
    they're welcome to do so. I simply described a method that I have found
    to consistently give *me* optimum results. There was absolutely no
    justification for John to attack me (or my eyesight) for doing so.

    I should add that it isn't the first time that John has adopted this
    response when someone offers another (often better) way of doing
    something than he recommends.
    Tony Morgan, May 10, 2004
  5. Paul

    Tony Morgan Guest

    Not true.

    As I've previously stated - I use that particular clip for all my tests
    because it will show comparison's of definition, hue and contrast.

    If you'd care to send me a DV clip of your choice I'll repeat the tests
    on that.

    Or even better - try it yourself. If John Russell had done so before
    making an issue of what I suggested, he might have been down the
    opticians himself.

    Alternatively - use whatever method you like to import a DVD clip into
    your video editor. All I stated was what *I* have found it to be both
    the simplest method, and the method that provides me with the best
    quality *that I* have been able to obtain.

    As the saying goes - the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

    And, I might add that I suspect that both John and yourself have never
    ever done (or tried to do) what the OP asked - otherwise you both
    wouldn't be making such a big deal about it.

    I'm dropping out of this thread since so many folk seem to be taking
    issue with the method that I have used a good deal, and found it to be
    the best way for me.

    I sometimes wonder why I bother. You can all get on with it as far as
    I'm concerned.
    Tony Morgan, May 10, 2004
  6. Paul

    wishy Guest

    Fair enough. I just thought it odd that I'd seen these particular frames
    before. I can understand having a clip you're happy with - myself, if I
    were doing it, I know I'd find it difficult to use the exact same frame
    and would most likely content myself with sampling somewhere around the
    same frame.

    I hardly think that dipping my toe once into the tail end of a
    discussion can be described as making a big deal of it. Personally I'd
    go for ripping the original VOB since to my mind this would save time
    and keep the process digital but you're right, I haven't carried out
    wishy, May 10, 2004
  7. Paul

    John Russell Guest

    The complete opposite is true. You are more likely to make an issue when you
    have done it and someone claims that no software exists to do something. To
    shift ones defence to a "qualitative" argument without admitting the
    alternative method does exist is duplicitous.
    John Russell, May 10, 2004
  8. Paul

    John Russell Guest

    I'm still waiting for a description of how he did "my method" when he was
    arguing no software existed to do it. Any evidence therefore is dubious.

    If he is comparing the image from a DVD-video MPEG against the same DVD
    digitsed to DV via analog a simple question has to be answered. Where did
    the extra detail come from?

    A farer argument about the two methods could be that you "prefer" the DV
    version becuase the DVD players hardware decoder and TV circuit
    smoothered/filtered the raw dvd-video MPEG but that hardly makes it a more
    accurate rendition.

    I think he is defending an earlier argument about MPEG or DV editing when
    starting from DV video. That isn't what we are talking about here. Even then
    you'd have to be comparing images from the final rendered DVD, not the
    editor. If you take images from a DV editor they will look better than those
    in an MPEG editor, but I don't go around asking people to view my videos in
    the editor, I show them via DVD!
    John Russell, May 10, 2004
  9. Paul

    Jukka Aho Guest


    1) Take one good quality still picture. (For argument's
    sake, we will name this "test1A.jpg".)

    2) Apply a moderate Gaussian Blur filter to this first
    picture. Save under a different name (say, "test1B.jpg".)

    3) Post an article to Usenet.
    Jukka Aho, May 10, 2004
  10. Paul

    Jerry. Guest

    Why not use a 'corrected' [1] test card, or just colour bars, surely these
    are the only true test images ?

    BTW this is intended as a flame.

    [1] either corrected for display on a computer CRT or a television CRT.
    Jerry., May 10, 2004
  11. Paul

    Ed Fielden Guest

    I must admit this is exactly what went though my mind when I saw the images,
    but I didn't like to say!
    Ed Fielden, May 10, 2004
  12. Paul

    Jerry. Guest

    OUCH !.....

    But it is something we will never know, such is Usenet and the web.
    Jerry., May 10, 2004
  13. Paul

    Tony Morgan Guest

    In message <>, wishy
    Vegas permits frame-accurate selection.

    From my recollection, I believe that the previous test to which your
    refer was (again) using Ulead's MovieFactory - that time was about
    burning straight from miniDV tape to DVD. And it *may* have been John
    Russell who recommended *that* solution too - maybe that's why he became
    abusive this time. I remember getting MovieFactory simply because John
    (I think) was the person recommending it - and I was rather pissed off
    at the quality of the bloody thing.

    I've used the same clip/frame BTW to compare Ulead's Studio 5, Edit
    Studio 3 (both with and without the optional extra MPEG improved codec),
    Pinnacle versions 7 and 8, MM2 and Vegas 4 at various times. I've also
    used the clip/frame to assess other applications (e.g. Nero and DVDit).

    I've often found that many folk give programs glowing recommendations -
    when if you do a proper comparison on a level playing field the program
    can be seen to be crap. I don't often challenge such folk these days
    because they end up (like John) in getting abusive.

    The adoption of a "baseline" clip/frame avoids the necessity of going
    through each application. If you just willy-nilly use any odd clip and
    frame position, then any results become meaningless. And viewing the
    JPGs in "alongside" windows in any half-decent graphic program allows
    you to make a meaningful comparison - even when the differences are
    relatively insignificant. And you can zoom in by the same amount/in the
    same position on each frame. On my "standard" frame one zoom on the hair
    and one on the cheek tells you all you need to know about each program
    or method you are comparing.
    Tony Morgan, May 10, 2004
  14. Paul

    Tony Morgan Guest

    But it is something we will never know, such is Usenet and the web.[/QUOTE]

    Ahhh... There's the rub. Any one of the doubters (like John himself) can
    do exactly the same comparison with *any* clip/frame and see for
    That is why I outlined the method I've used. (and offered to repeat the
    test on a supplied clip - but folk can do it themselves).

    You can scoff all you like - but the proof of the pudding is in the
    Tony Morgan, May 10, 2004
  15. Paul

    John Russell Guest

    From my recollection, I believe that the previous test to which your
    Nothing is perfect. The guy was faced with transferring over 300 hrs of old
    wornVHS tape to DVD. Direct to DVD recording is an option for making this
    easy and I doubt the loss of quality you refer too would be noticeable in
    that circumstance. It's called a "trade off". Would he find it preferable to
    lose some control and "quality" (compared to worn VHS tape) for the
    convienience of litterally one button press transfers?

    But again you seem to think that anything recommended must that persons
    global solution to all problems. This was a specific issue.

    And I again say I don't use a single integrated package for all my video. I
    have different sets depnding upon the job. So if I myself use different
    software in different situations don't go implying that I'm suggesting that
    any particuler software is all things to all men becuase I don't believe it!

    Oh , and for being pissed off with you, that wasn't the issue. It was the
    fact you never appologised for questioing my advice over sector base hard
    disk imaging, where you said it was really file based backup in disguise as
    no software exists which does it.
    John Russell, May 10, 2004
  16. Paul

    John Russell Guest

    No I only do it to you since your tack is always that it isn't possible to
    do it another way but yours. It's impossible to help people to choose the
    method best for them if someone is always saying other suggestions arn't
    possible. That's what bugs me and others about you!
    John Russell, May 10, 2004
  17. Paul

    Tony Morgan Guest

    Bang-on Jerry. That did occur to me in the early days of my "testing".
    However, for several reasons, I couldn't get a meaningful comparison.
    Firstly of all the "test cards" available on the Web seem to be JPGs
    with varying amounts of compression and none at DV frame size - and
    every one I found had visible artefacts.

    Perhaps there is a bit of kit out there that will generate a test-card
    in DV format - but I imagine that it would be outside of my budget.

    If anyone can provide me with a clip in DV (or DV AVI) with a good
    "test-card" clip I'd be grateful. Even though a TIFF or BMP could be
    used (since Vegas can generate DV video clip from it) I'd then be
    introducing the "unknown" of the way that Vegas does the conversion.
    What's new from you Jerry ? :)
    As soon as you go down the route of photographing the display image you
    run into a whole new bucketful of imponderables - and I would suggest
    it, at best, makes it very difficult to manage, and at worst makes the
    whole exercise meaningless.

    I'd suggest that if you get "good" and "not-quite-as-good", then the
    method by which it is displayed wouldn't impact on the comparison. A
    "bad" picture on a TFT will look just as bad on a glass display (whether
    TV or monitor), compared with the "good" that you're comparing it with.

    I should perhaps add that the particular clip used took me a while to
    select from my archives. I imagine that anyone can find a clip suitable
    for comparisons, and even if you don't have one to hand, it wont take
    long to shoot one. And it can be a very useful thing to have should you
    ever decide to invest in a new video editor (or any other video
    manipulation program) - especially as most are available in 30-day trial
    Tony Morgan, May 10, 2004
  18. Paul

    Jerry. Guest

    Ahhh... There's the rub. Any one of the doubters (like John himself) can
    do exactly the same comparison with *any* clip/frame and see for

    I was trying to point out that we have to take what people say on face
    value, otherwise we might as well stop reading both Usenet and the web.
    Indeed it is, at the end of the day we can / all / pontificate as much as we
    like, but it's what works for the person doing the job and their definition
    of 'quality'. Your quality is more than likely different to mine and both of
    ours is difference to next person IYSWIM.
    Jerry., May 10, 2004
  19. Paul

    John Russell Guest

    But the big problem you have is explaining where the extra detail came from
    (or is lost depeding on your point of view)? If the detail was their on the
    DVD-R to be captured then it is there in the MPEG extracted from the VOB. So
    the MPEG you have transfered is not the MPEG contained in the VOB!

    If you exported it to file then you must have rerendered it losing all the
    detail. I'm afraid you do have to tweak to avoid this. You should check the
    DVD-Video MPEG setings and make sure the project output settings match.

    The best way is to use the files in the Moviefactory DVD capture directory
    which should be unprocessed. If you did that that this particler item of
    software is not doing what it should do, which is extract the MPEG
    unmodified and let the user choose how to render it. In which case use a DVD
    ripper to extract the video stream.

    You can't expect peole to take results at face value when you've spent half
    this thread declaring that vob files couldn't be accessed directly by any
    know software, and then declare you've done it!
    John Russell, May 10, 2004
  20. Paul

    Jerry. Guest

    Not really, you should be able to check that it's OK via a vector scope etc.
    and correct as required, the image as recorded will then be legal, if it
    looks wrong on screen there is something wrong with the monitor, TV, the way
    it's been recoded or what ever - the image is not wrong IYSWIM ? That is why
    the scopes are so useful, they take the guess work out.
    Opps ! :~(
    Sorry, that should have read 'BTW this is _not_ intended as a flame.'.
    Jerry., May 11, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.