DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   High Definition Video Editing Solutions (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/high-definition-video-editing-solutions/)
-   -   Editing question (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/high-definition-video-editing-solutions/14012-editing-question.html)

Raymond Krystof September 12th, 2003 05:39 PM

In regards to the bundled NLE
 
Brian,

I’ve only done a couple of short DVD’s just as an experiment. First one was only 8 minutes long and the second 12 minutes.

No problem with the capture utility. It does have scene recognition creating separate files. With the editing utility I did some simple edits, cuts, cross fades, etc. Rendering seemed to be real time or the program renders on the fly. The DVD utility is entry level and my only comment is that I may have been doing something wrong but I couldn’t get chapter markers to work like chapter markers. They ended up acting more like separate movie buttons. When starting play, the DVD would stop playing at the end of the first clip represented by a button. If I stated with any clip, play would stop at the end of that clip. This may have been pilot error on my part in understanding the structure of the utility. All my previous experience with DVD writing programs, which is limited, has been with entry level bundled software (My DVD etc). This DVD writing utility seems very much the same in features.

I’m using a 3Ghz P4 with 1gig ram. I capture to and edit on a separate physical drive D:. I export to drive C: and write to the DVD recorder from there. No lockups, no crashes. Transcoding from Mpeg2 TS to Mpeg2 DVD seemed pretty fast. But the content was too short to really make a judgment.

The actual video playback quality from the DVD is very good. I believe there is a benefit due to the over sampling aspects. I say this with reservation because my previous DV to DVD efforts were with an entry level camera. The DVD playback in that scenario was actually quite bad.

Although it seems to work, I think I’ll pursue purchasing Aspect HD when I get a little more financially healed. I’ve been working with Premiere 6.5 and am excited about what I’ve been reading about Premiere Pro and Encore.

Heath McKnight September 12th, 2003 05:53 PM

Steve,

No clue when unbalanced could be good and balanced could be bad.

heath

Lynne Whelden September 12th, 2003 09:34 PM

Balanced means only one thing....the mic cable doesn't have the third wire used for protecting from electromagnetic interference. Which doesn't become an issue unless you're running mic cabling longer than 6 feet. Shorter than that and there should be NO difference between balanced and unbalanced sound.

Eric Bilodeau September 13th, 2003 07:15 AM

Lynne is right. The thing with balanced-unbalanced sound is simple: the two are as susceptible to electomagnetic interference because of the weak signal level of audio but one of them has a ground witch acts as an indicator. The three wires will be affected in the very same way by interference, as the ground provides no signal other than the interference, the balanced system uses this interference indication to rid the other two channels of this noise. A simple and quite logical solution. As Lynne pointed out, with short cabling, unbalanced audio is less susceptible to that but not entirely shielded.

Steve Mullen September 13th, 2003 07:48 PM

The other good thing about balanced is that the XLR plug and jack are very secure and shielded.

The problem comes if the transformer in the converter is not super high quality or perefectly shielded.

It can be sensitive to microphonics and/or pick-up hum.

With almost everyone using wireless mics, the reciever only needs a foot or so cable to the camcorder. My view is that JVC wasted money adding an XLR box.

Ken Hodson September 13th, 2003 08:29 PM

I agree that JVC probably wasted cash on the XLR's, but I can understand their reasoning. XLR has become standard with anything in the pro catagory, so they are sort of forced by the market to include it. I wish they had upped the price $200 and made it a solid solution though.
ken

Eric Bilodeau September 13th, 2003 09:25 PM

It was more about having XLR to differenciate the proSUMER from the consumer, try to make it more attractive. Of course they did waste money and should have invested in a solution to control the iris and shutter instead of that. It is always about catching the fish, a lure is a lure. XLR now seems to be a PRO attribute as Ken said, personnally I don't take my sound in camera most of the time, I do not have sufficient control so I don't care much about XLR, balanced or not on the camera.

Steve Mullen September 13th, 2003 09:39 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Eric Bilodeau : I do not have sufficient control so I don't care much about XLR, balanced or not on the camera. -->>>

And why would you want to control audio during capture? :)

Eric Bilodeau September 13th, 2003 09:46 PM

I do not do much documentary work, mostly fiction, so sound has to be carefully monitored, I usually work with another person doing the sound, and of course it would be a pain to have him hooked up to the camera, following me all the time, that's all...


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:34 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2024 The Digital Video Information Network