DVD capacity question

Discussion in 'Video Cameras' started by rovereab, May 30, 2004.

  1. rovereab

    rovereab Guest

    How many minutes of Hi8 video recording can I expect to be able to store on
    a DVD please. I am using Sonic MyDVD LE version 5.0, a Firewire connected
    Sony TRV355E and DVD+R media.

    Would the number of minutes be different for new Digital8 recordings from
    the camcorder?

    Thanks.
     
    rovereab, May 30, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. rovereab

    Tony Morgan Guest

    57 minutes - but see below.
    The same.

    The 57 minutes is for the best quality. However, most software allows
    you to change bit-rates and other parameters to get considerably longer
    capacity. By doing so does reduce the quality somewhat.
     
    Tony Morgan, May 30, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. rovereab

    Just D Guest

    Hi,

    One more large but. Audio channels should be compressed. If audio stream
    isn't compressed, the using of a maximum quality causes a problem for some
    DVD players (I physically can't test all of them, by my really has this
    problem). You can see that the video jumps, becomes jerky, etc. I found this
    effect and even asked about it here in this newsgroup a couple of months
    ago. I don't remember who, I think Tony...) noticed that the audio stream
    adds an additional stream that is not included in the total stream evaluated
    by some programs (maybe Nero that I'm using has this defect, but it's just
    my own opinion). So when you use a maximum video quality you have to limit
    the video stream if you're using a non-compressed audio. Using a compressed
    audio stream I can male the DVD video with a maximum quality and it works
    fine now. So, it's important to know what are you going to get, the maximum
    audio quality, or maximum video. I prefer video, it's more noticeable. The
    difference between standard, or even a maximum available video and 1000 less
    is very significant of a good TV.

    Thanks,
    Dmitri Shvetsov
     
    Just D, May 30, 2004
    #3
  4. rovereab

    Jerry. Guest

    Due to now being DV at a fixed compression of 5:1 after the 'pass-through'
    analogue > DV conversion.
    I assume you are talking about encoded MPEG2 files Tony. If you are talking
    about DV (as the OP asked but which you have not corrected him about) were
    do you obtain 13 GByte DVD+R media ?!... :~)
     
    Jerry., May 30, 2004
    #4
  5. rovereab

    Just D Guest

    I assume you are talking about encoded MPEG2 files Tony. If you are
    Pretty soon you can write up to 23...)

    Sony - Professional Disk Data - 23 GBytes - available for customers.

    http://www.sony.net/Products/MO-Drive/ProDATA/pdf/proData_E.pdf

    Thanks,
    Dmitri Shvetsov
     
    Just D, May 30, 2004
    #5
  6. rovereab

    Tony Morgan Guest

    Point taken Jerry. Perhaps though the phrasing of my response should
    have put it in context.

    Perhaps though I should have added that archiving DV to DVD is not the
    best solution [1], since a DVD will hold about 20 minutes of DV video.

    [1] My view that by far the best way of archiving DV video without
    paying out lots of money is to write-back (if you feel the need)
    to
    miniDV tape giving up to 90 minutes of archiving (LP).
     
    Tony Morgan, May 30, 2004
    #6
  7. rovereab

    Just D Guest

    Hi Tony,
    Are you seriously using LP mode? I heard about many disadvantages, the
    advantage is the length of the tape only.

    Thanks,
    Dmitri Shvetsov
     
    Just D, May 30, 2004
    #7
  8. rovereab

    Jerry. Guest

    I quite agree Tony, but I would not go down the LP route, you are
    compressing the *writing* of the DV data, that is not a good move IMO.
     
    Jerry., May 30, 2004
    #8
  9. rovereab

    John Russell Guest

    As others have said the use of the word "store" is ambiquous. Do you mean
    "store" in the "archive" or "backup" sense, or do you mean how much video
    can you actually have on a DVD-video disk to be played on a DVD player?
    If it's the latter then your limited by the DVD-video MPEG2 standard.
    That allows a max video rate of 9.8 mbps and a max overall rate (including
    audio) of 10.08 mbps. If
    this was as "bad" as some make out none of us would be able to watch DVD's
    and be demanding movies be supplied on DV tape!
    The problem with the DVD-video standard is that it was created for
    pre-recorded DVD's and many DVD players have problems with recordable media
    at DVD-Video high bitrates. I've read
    of someone recommneding never going beyond 7MPS so that all players can
    handle the recordings. If you choose twin pass VBR encoding you also
    increase capacity but the amount is content dependent, which is why
    constant rate is most often assumed in calculating capacity.
    The last project I authored used Twin Pass 8000 VBR and ended up with a
    36minute video requiring 1.77gb of DVD space, averaging about 87mins per
    disk. Taking the conservative 7mbps would increase this further. When viewed
    on a TV using a decent DVD player I doubt many peole would notice the
    difference between it and a direct feed from a DV version played on a
    camera.
     
    John Russell, May 30, 2004
    #9
  10. rovereab

    Tony Morgan Guest

    Pretty soon you can write up to 23...)

    Sony - Professional Disk Data - 23 GBytes - available for customers.

    http://www.sony.net/Products/MO-Drive/ProDATA/pdf/proData_E.pdf[/QUOTE]

    Oh bloody hell - not another DVD format to confuse matters. I remember
    the 70's and 80's when every man and his dog had his own set of
    proprietary standards for everything from operating systems to
    communications. I thought those bad old days had gone.

    Bring back the old Colorado :)
     
    Tony Morgan, May 30, 2004
    #10
  11. rovereab

    Tony Morgan Guest

    Are you seriously using LP mode? I heard about many disadvantages, the
    advantage is the length of the tape only.[/QUOTE]

    IME the only downside is that an LP tape cannot be guaranteed to play
    without problems on anything other than the camcorder it was recorded
    on. I do, in fact, archive at SP (in case my somewhat ageing TRV30
    should let me down) - touch wood.
     
    Tony Morgan, May 30, 2004
    #11
  12. rovereab

    Jerry. Guest

    "DVD disc's? Aren't they 'DIGITAL', it's got to be better than that old
    fashioned, redundant analogue format called tape."

    When you consider that many a 'person in the street' accepts MP3 (with it's
    diabolical bit-rate) as a format worth listening to can you really see them
    complaining about DVD bit-rates... The advantage that DVD *does* have over
    *S-VHS* is content management (chapter point, alternate content, non-linier
    access etc).
    The biggest problem is going to disc life, just as with CD's (which has been
    known about for some time - never mind what the press think...), the
    problem is when a tape is damaged or ages not all the tape content is always
    lost unlike a CD/DVD were it's either playable or not.
     
    Jerry., May 30, 2004
    #12
  13. rovereab

    Jerry. Guest

    So, what you are saying is, there is no advantage either way, if the DVD
    doesn't play you loose the lot, if the tape chews up you loose the lot...

    I disagree, a failed disc is a failed disc, a chewed tape can be repaired
    (OK you will more than likely loose the chewed portion) and the repaired
    taped can then be dubbed if needs be on to a fresh tape - the data can be
    retrieved, even if a little worse for wear (no pun intended), with a CD/DVD
    disc AIUI you can't.
     
    Jerry., May 31, 2004
    #13
  14. rovereab

    Keith Laws Guest

    You *could* use a microscope to scan the disk and determine the
    arrangement of the burnt dye areas (and hence the data) and then make a
    new master from that, with dummy data in the damaged areas, but it might
    be cheaper to just cut a chewed up bit out of a tape and splice the
    remainder back together.
    --
    Keith Laws

    What's my solution?

    .....NOISE POLLUTION
     
    Keith Laws, May 31, 2004
    #14
  15. Sorry but you're confusing inability to play with inability to retrieve data. A
    failed disc is one that no longer contains any readable data. An unplayable disc
    is a damaged disc. Exactly similar to tapes.

    It is not a particularly difficult job to read raw data from any damaged or
    index erased data source. Yes, you will loose some but it's the amount of damage
    that matters not the media.

    Do a search on google for recovering damaged dvd.

    regards

    Stuart McKears

    www.mckears.com
     
    Stuart McKears, May 31, 2004
    #15
  16. rovereab

    Tony Morgan Guest

    I might mention, to add what Jerry has said, that using miniDV tape
    alleviates one of the problems that people (who do more than the
    occasional family gathering videos) have with tape - that of it wearing.
    Here's what I do.

    Every time I use a tape for shooting I put a dot on the spine. When
    finished with the tape I put it in my rack, so that a tape that's been
    used for shooting four times has four dots. Now, when I come to archive
    my video I glance along my rack and pick the tape with the most dots -
    and use that for archiving.

    Doing this ensures that I always shoot with a fairly new tape, and my
    archives are also made on relatively new tapes so the chance of a
    failure is greatly reduced

    And if you edit (especially your "stock" clips) before archiving, It's
    amazing how much your reduce the amount you carry in your archives.

    Another thing that I do is rename the clips that do *not* go into the
    movie so that each filename begins with a 'z'. This means that I can
    lift the whole lot of "non-movie" clips that I want to archive into the
    timeline - because they're at the bottom of the file list. So the
    archive of the finished movie (that includes all the used clips) is
    supplemented by the additional clips that I want to archive.

    The other thing that I might mention in answer to those who claim that
    using miniDV for archiving will wear out your camcorder, is that by
    using quality tapes that are not over-used (as is the case here) there
    should be no wear or debris build-up on your camcorder's tape transport
    mechanism. Indeed my TRV30 has never had the need for tape head cleaning
    in two-and-a-half years use.

    Another thing that I'm *trying* to do is build a database (using Access)
    of keywords so I can find clips when I need them. I haven't got very
    far, I must confess, since (a) its a bloody boring job and (b) I get
    distracted.... :)
    I really wish I'd started doing this a long, long time ago - but life's
    full of regrets.
     
    Tony Morgan, May 31, 2004
    #16
  17. rovereab

    John Russell Guest

    I'm beginning to think an approach similer to modern audio master tapes is
    beneficial. With that you do not store the edited version, you actually
    store the raw tracks and the mixer settings. So store the original DV camera
    tapes and copy all the project files from your editing software to CD-R.
    That way you can recreate the edited version again.

    There have been a few posts on NG's recently pointing out the that I-link DV
    spec includes compression. Copying files back and forth from DV camera to PC
    introduces error as the software codec on the PC never match's exactly the
    hardware codec in the camera. So archiving edited DV back to the camara is
    not the "perfect" solution some argue it is. In order to recreate a DVD from
    the archive you have to copy the DV back to PC, that means the files have
    gone through the i-link codec 3 times. Recreating a DVD from the source
    files and project files has the same error as the orignal DVD as the i-link
    codec is only used once.
     
    John Russell, May 31, 2004
    #17
  18. rovereab

    Jerry. Guest

    One of the advantages of not erasing your rushes (ie. the as is camera
    tape) and logging those rushes for use with a batch capture list for the
    production before you start, rather than use a scene detection program, is
    that you have this information as part of the editing process - and by only
    capturing what you need you (should) be able to speed up the edit.
    IYSWIM....
     
    Jerry., May 31, 2004
    #18
  19. rovereab

    Tony Morgan Guest

    Not so John, providing your video editor stores your clips as DV AVIs.
    The DV coming off your tape remains untouched - it's simply encapsulated
    in the AVI envelope. Then when you write-back to miniDV your video
    editor (should) simply remove the DV from the AVI envelope and pass it
    out on firewire.
    No. See above. The camcorder's (original recording) storage on tape puts
    the 4CC code in the video. Then when output it is simply streamed
    through the camcorder's codec with no processing other than the IEE1394
    header and footer. At the video editor's codec the video stream is
    segmented into DV clips, encapsulated into individual DV AVI files [1]
    and stored on hard disk. Even the original 4CC code in the PC's files
    identify the *original* camcorder's codec. Then when writing back to
    DV-in on the camcorder the AVI envelope is removed but no processing of
    the DV itself occurs. If you run YAAI on your DV AVIs you can confirm
    all this. So the only processing (except for the adding/stripping AVI
    envelope) is the *original* encoding from the camcorder's CCD.

    [1] Premiere doesn't split the DV into individual DV AVI files,
    though most other video editors do. Having said that, Pinnacle
    Studio (7 I think) used to have a (non-default) option of storing
    the source video on hard disk in either MPEG-1 or MPEG-2)
    for those with serious free-space problems. The editor, when
    making video, would then shuttle the tape back and forth pulling
    the various clips in to render (when you set this option you
    couldn't write-back to miniDV tape for obvious reasons).

    Vegas, BTW, is non-destructive which lends itself well to management.
    After capture into whatever directory you designate, the clips are
    *never* touched, no matter what you do. All editing events and controls
    are stored in what is essentially a Project macro. You can also
    designate a separate directory for the project files. Most here will see
    the advantages of this. I keep all project files on my C: drive, put the
    video into a named "project directory" on my D: drive. When I've
    finished my video work, I simply label the miniDV disk with the D:
    project directory and delete the contents of that directory.

    At any time I can revisit the project by simply re-loading the miniDV
    tape into the project directory (as labelled on the tape) and I'm back
    where I was. I suppose that if you have a program to write data to DVD
    you could do the same thing with Vegas, except for the pain of swapping
    disks. With miniDV tapes I just start loading (capturing) and go down
    the pub (or do something more useful).

    Other video editors *may* permit you to do this - I just haven't looked.
     
    Tony Morgan, May 31, 2004
    #19
  20. rovereab

    Tony Morgan Guest

    You might like to note what I've said about Vegas to John, in this
    context. And as I mentioned, other video editors might support the
    non-destructive editing model.
     
    Tony Morgan, May 31, 2004
    #20
    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.