.mpg or .mov help! at DVinfo.net

Warren Kawamoto · September 11th, 2007, 01:17 AM

I'm supposed to edit a commercial for broadcast which includes chromakeying. The producer/cameraman has the raw footage, and I requested that he send me the raw footage. I got a dvd with an .mpg file on it. I told them I needed raw files, which would be .avi or .mov. The producer insisted that the .mpg files he gave me are uncompressed, but I said that can't be. He claims to have submitted programming to tv stations in .mpg format. He says he's been doing tv for 30 years and declared .mpg as good as raw dv footage. I say that's impossible. Who is right? BTW I tried chromakeying his .mpg file and of course it looked like crap.

Warren Kawamoto · September 11th, 2007, 11:46 AM

I re-read my post and it's confusing. Raw footage is standard dv. The question should be:
What file format is better for chromakeying? .mpg or .mov?

Emre Safak · September 11th, 2007, 01:13 PM

That's because he has an HDV camera. They natively shoot MPEG-2. If you really want to be sure you can ask him what camera he has. I don't suppose he is familiar with shooting for chromakey?

MOV is a container, not a codec. This means that it does not tell you anything about the quality of the video it contains.

Warren Kawamoto · September 11th, 2007, 03:50 PM

The camera he used was a Canon GL2, standard dv.

Emre Safak · September 11th, 2007, 04:30 PM

The GL2 does not produce MPEG-2 files, so the producer was pulling your leg when he said they are uncompressed. The original DV AVI files are going to be hard enough to key (due to chroma subsampling), and recompressing them to MPEG-2 only makes things worse.

Warren Kawamoto · September 11th, 2007, 05:02 PM

Thank you very much, he insisted he was right, that his footage wasn't compressed. He's been airing programs by submitting mpg files to the station. I haven't seen his programs but from just from the sound of it, I don't think it can look good.

September 11th, 2007, 01:17 AM	#1
Warren Kawamoto Trustee Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Honolulu, HI Posts: 1,435	.mpg or .mov help! I'm supposed to edit a commercial for broadcast which includes chromakeying. The producer/cameraman has the raw footage, and I requested that he send me the raw footage. I got a dvd with an .mpg file on it. I told them I needed raw files, which would be .avi or .mov. The producer insisted that the .mpg files he gave me are uncompressed, but I said that can't be. He claims to have submitted programming to tv stations in .mpg format. He says he's been doing tv for 30 years and declared .mpg as good as raw dv footage. I say that's impossible. Who is right? BTW I tried chromakeying his .mpg file and of course it looked like crap.

September 11th, 2007, 11:46 AM	#2
Warren Kawamoto Trustee Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Honolulu, HI Posts: 1,435	I re-read my post and it's confusing. Raw footage is standard dv. The question should be: What file format is better for chromakeying? .mpg or .mov?

September 11th, 2007, 01:13 PM	#3
Emre Safak Trustee Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Brookline, MA Posts: 1,447	That's because he has an HDV camera. They natively shoot MPEG-2. If you really want to be sure you can ask him what camera he has. I don't suppose he is familiar with shooting for chromakey? MOV is a container, not a codec. This means that it does not tell you anything about the quality of the video it contains.

September 11th, 2007, 03:50 PM	#4
Warren Kawamoto Trustee Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Honolulu, HI Posts: 1,435	The camera he used was a Canon GL2, standard dv.

September 11th, 2007, 04:30 PM	#5
Emre Safak Trustee Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Brookline, MA Posts: 1,447	The GL2 does not produce MPEG-2 files, so the producer was pulling your leg when he said they are uncompressed. The original DV AVI files are going to be hard enough to key (due to chroma subsampling), and recompressing them to MPEG-2 only makes things worse.

September 11th, 2007, 05:02 PM	#6
Warren Kawamoto Trustee Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Honolulu, HI Posts: 1,435	Thank you very much, he insisted he was right, that his footage wasn't compressed. He's been airing programs by submitting mpg files to the station. I haven't seen his programs but from just from the sound of it, I don't think it can look good.