When or why would you capture to an mpeg2 file instead of DV?

An issue with mpeg capture is that apparently it has to go through a lengthy
post capture process, which certainly seems like a pain. Besides the initial
capture you have to wait for it to process the capture. Not so with DV.

It was my understanding that DVD's *are* in mpeg2 format. Is this correct?

I notice that my program (Pinnacle 9) lists "full quality DV" as 3600 kbps.
Mpeg as 6000 kbps, yet I've read where some say DV is superior in quality. I
thought the higher the bitrate, the better the image. Perhaps that's an
overly simplistic way of looking at it?



Thanks for all shared wisdom.

mpeg2 uses less data for comparable quality, and plays directly on dvd
players.

That's not really "capture", that's conversion from one format to another.
Mpeg2 capture would mean shooting with a camera that records mpeg2
directly.

Yes.

Yes.

Doc wrote:

You have incorrect figures there. DV is 3.6 megabytes per second. That
equals to about 29 megabits per second (or 29 000 kbps, if you want to
put it that way.) Bits (b) are not bytes (B).

MPEG(-2), on the other hand, does not have any fixed bitrate. When
encoding video to MPEG format, you are usually allowed to decide
yourself what the bitrate will be, and you can usually use a variable
bitrate format where the bitrate will vary according to the complexity
of the images. (To put things in perspective, the maximum DVD video
bitrate is 9800 kbps, but the average bitrate on most DVDs is well below
that.)

Dunno, I'm getting this off the screen on my capture program, Pinnacle 9.

Show quote Hide quote   You have a number of things reversed.  Capturing to DVD
compliant MPEG2 requires LESS processing than DV.
This assumes that your end purpose is to create a DVD of the
captured video.  It is a much faster and much simpler process.
In many cases all you need to do is author and burn the DVD.

  "Besides the initial capture you have to wait for it to process
the capture." Where did you get that idea?  These captures are
in real time.  By the way the term "Capture" relates to acquiring
a digital copy of an Analog signal.

  It is DV that must go through a very time consuming encoding
to DVD Compliant MPEG prior to authoring the DVD.

  Full frame DV at 30fps is superior in quality, to DVD Compliant
MPEG2 and not much different in quality to HD MPEG4 at good
bitrates.

  Where there is a reason, Not to use DVD Compliant MPEG, is
if there is a need to apply image altering editing and you wish to
have the largest number of editing options.  Native MPEG editing
is still either limited or very expensive.  You can do almost anything
in DV, with the profusion of software made to manipulate video in
that format.

   Another reason to use DV is if that is what you have to start with,
say from a consumer video camera.  Such material would normally
need extensive editing anyway; prior to its lengthy encoding.

  If your objective is to capture analog sources; TV, VCR , Cable/
Satellite, or TiVo S-Video outputs with material that has been
professionally edited, then DVD Compliant MPEG capture with
the parameters you wish for your DVD, is the way to go.  What
little editing needed, (removing commercials and/or other unwanted
parts,) can be easily handled with very basic MPEG Editors.  You
can have a finished DVD within a Half hour after the real-time capture.

With an analog capture to DV, in real time, you still face an encoding
process that will take at least as much time again.  ( There are some
expensive high speed encoders running on multi-processor systems
that can do this encoding in a fraction of the real time capture, but
they are the exception. And this is in addition to the real time capture)

So, to answer your question: you use DV from DV sources and DVD
Compliant MPEG from Analog  previously edited sources.

  If you have unedited Analog material then it's best to capture that to
your Editor's native format.

Luck;
     Ken

From watching what happens after I did a test capture. After hitting the
stop capture, it goes through another step "completing processing of mpeg"
with a progress bar, that takes longer than the original capture.  There is
an option to "capture realtime" but apparently my 933mhz machine isn't fast
enough to do it effectively. I tried it and the resulting video is choppy.

What I'm doing in this case is playing 8mm tapes through a Digital8 cam,
which does the conversion to DV outputting via Firewire.

In my case, I need to do a lot of editing.

This says that you're actually capturing in DV format, either from a DV
source directly, or an analog->DV conversion process.  Then your capture
program is going back over the data to do the MPEG-2 encoding as a
second pass.

So you should be capturing to DV, editing in that form, and only when
you have completed editing then converting to MPEG-2 to write to a DVD.

Doing the MPEG conversion at the time of capture has no advantage other
than saving some disk space, and loses some quality and makes editing
more difficult.

    Dave

  If you aren't going to edit the video substantially later -- cuts
only works OK with mpeg2, though it is slower to work with than DV --
and your only output target is DVD, this can save time.  Especially,
if all you want is a direct copy of the source on DVD, this is simpler
than capture as DV, then edit and convert.

  OTOH, if you really want simple, use a stand-alone DVD recorder to
capture.

  Right.

  DV is 3600kBps, mpeg2 on DVD is anything up to 8000kbps.  The
capital letter B means bytes - 8 bits.  So DV is 3600 x 8 = 28800kbps
(with 25000kbps allocated to video).  Some data will go to audio on
your mpeg2 conversion as well.

  Anyway, DV does indeed have a higher data rate than mpeg2 on DVD.
But mpeg2 allows for interframe compression, where information in one
frame is reused in others, which allows for smaller file sizes without
losing detail.  Doing this makes editing much harder, and for optimal
results requires that the video be processed in two passes.  This adds
more processing time, but the final output in mpeg2 is worth spending
more time on.  Commercial movies and TV shows get to spend a *lot* of
processing time optimizing the mpeg2 compression, making the most of
whatever bits they can afford to use.

  Real time video recording and fast editing needs to use more bits to
get the same quality results.  That is why DV is optimal for that.
There are higher bit rate, lower compression formats which are better,
but for the average person it is overkill.  Plus of course, if DV
camcorders are the source, you can't expect to get better than what
you put into the machine in the first place.

Recommended camcorder repair stations?
How to play mp3 player thru vehicle dvd player auxiliary input
laptop as monitor? (correct email address)
Any loss in Pro DVcam to Digital8 transfer?
Canon ZR200 camcorder repair help (battery connection)
i have a sony handycam ccd trv21analog video8 format
Recording from Hi-8 Camcorder to MiniDV Camcorder
Recording from Hi-8 Camcorder to MiniDV Camcorder
mencoder A/V sync problems on Norcent DP-220 player
newbee help with viewing