Re: a 'piece' of NTSC video needed...

Scott Walde wrote:
> I forwarded your request to some colleagues that know what they're
> talking about.
>
> In addition to these emails, I spoke to Ken who says he doesn't have
> any capture equipment that will do 4:4:4, so anything he has will be
> at least "Chroma Subsampled."
hmmm. yes, I could've been more specific, but, say, 4:2:2 would be just
as OK also for what we'd like.
> -------------------------------
> From: George
>
> What kind of format does he need it in? I'm sure Ken could generate
> an uncompressed file out of Edit 1.
>
> There's no tape format that's actually uncompressed... Beta SP isn't
> digitally compressed, but its method of recording colour is a type of
> analog compression. For true unadulterated video, you'd need to take
> analog component directly out of a camera.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> From: Tracy
>
> What is is final purpose for it....all this testing has been done by
> guys with scopes that are worth more than everything I own. If its for
> anything from NTSC land its old news.
> Or what I would do is -
> Just generate a 2-4 min piece with a)color bars so you can see 'no
> movement edge detail' b) bars moving horizontaly at various rates and
> distance c) circular movement of the bars with varying radius 's's's
> and rate d) talking head e) exploding talking head
>
> The last one may not be neccessary. Then use after effects of
> combustion or anything that can split screen it. Also, "uncompressed
> NTSC" will look like ass unless it is de-interlaced first. This can be
> handled by some encoders at the render stage, but some just try to
> compress the interlacing.
These are good ideas, I don't have any 'generating' equipment or
software at the time of my asking tho'. Video of, say, a football game
or just a 'camera' looking out the window at a street with cars going by
and a park in the background or something like that with varying color &
movement at various speeds would be just fine - it need not be the
latest sci-if movie special effects, but could include some of that and
not just 'analog' real life.

What's it for? Our own 'education' in playing around with various
codecs/software - eg how does the codec & it's various settings affect
the size of the compressed video and how much compression can we 'do'
before we can see it when outputted on 'x' display/hardware/software. If
we take video from any other source we could think of, whether
'digitized' already or captured, like a DVD or MiniDV or such, it's
already been post-processed and compressed so we'd only be comparing it
to an already 'lossed' original. We do have a capture card (warning:
next word is a big technical terminology) thingy but it does MPEG2 in
hardware so it's already compressed anyway going 'into' the 'puter.

So maybe the idea of analog component out of a camera then
digitized/captured direct (or if the camera did such) is the answer?

And by NTSC I should explain further that, when/if anything is ever
getting 'displayed' final version (in this scenario for what we want to
try) it would mostly be on something like NTSC TV sets from a DVD player
(whether MPEG2 format or Divx or...) or similar device resolutions such
as from a computer with a graphics/video card S-Video/component/HDMI/DVI
output (although some DVD players do so-called 'upsampling' to get up to
1080P for large TV's that display that) so that's why it needn't be
higher resolution or faster than 30FPS, although it would be nice to
experiment with progressive vs interlaced scanned camera outputs.

Scott - I appreciate your knowledge & time in looking into this for me
and making inquiries.

> -------------------------------------------
> -What are you trying to test for? The nature of the video (motion,
> composition, etc) will all affect different compression techniques if
> that's what you're looking to do. Perhaps something like this would
> suit your needs better:
> http://www.itworks.com/products/ntsc-ref.htm
Received on Thu Apr 24 02:09:24 2008