PDA

View Full Version : Need clarity on the new 4.5 video codec, please?



Keith Nealy
08-10-2005, 05:54 PM
What is the best way to use this new video codec?

For example. I need digitize about 20 hours of DV footage. Normally I would just do a straight DV thru firewire digitize.

Would it be of an advantage to input via analogue and capture with this new codec? What would be the advantages? Faster internal rendering? Increased 4:2:2 colorspace for keying?

If there is no advantage, I need to start capturing now and not wait for the release. Time is slipping away and deadlines are looming.

Thanks for your help.

aloha,

Keith

robewil
08-10-2005, 06:09 PM
The new codec will benefit those who are digitizing analog video as it is a superior codec to DV. If your footage is already in DV, there isn't going to be any advantage in converting it to the new codec.

stargatesg1
08-24-2005, 10:40 AM
How technicly does teh NT25 codec compare to the toaster native rtv?
Being a reseller i could use a bit of tech side of it. It looks pretty exciting but i need something other then generic sales spin on this.

c.j

Paul Lara
08-24-2005, 01:44 PM
How technicly does the NT25 codec compare to the toaster native rtv?

CJ,

RTV is uncompressed; NT25 is 5:1 compressed
RTV takes 72Gig/hr; NT25 takes about 13Gig/hr storage
RTV is 4:2:2 color-space, as is NT25
RTV uses little to no CPU (nothing to decompress)
NT25 uses far less CPU than standard DV codec while decompressing frames for playback (hence its invention)


Does this help, or are there any other specifics you're interested in?

JReble
08-24-2005, 04:45 PM
How about this one.....If someone has three systems with VT4.5 and one with VT3, can one put the NT25 codec on the VT3 system and work with it reliably in VT3?

ScorpioProd
08-24-2005, 08:55 PM
Ah... How exactly would you do that???

Keith Nealy
08-25-2005, 12:52 AM
So to get back to my original question regarding which is better: DV or NT25, it would seem to make some sense to capture your DV via analog into the NT25 codec with the following advantages:

1. proc amp color control of video when digitizing.
2. audio sweetening when digitizing and getting proper levels +.
3. NT25 would not tax the system as much as DV in Ted.
4. (some unforseen advantage to having the clip in 4:2:2 colorspace)

re: Paul - "NT25 uses far less CPU than standard DV codec while decompressing frames for playback (hence its invention)"

I understand that DV is perfect copy but not all DV is perfect to begin with.
;)

Aloha,

Keith :cool:

jrrost
08-31-2005, 05:00 PM
hEY bIG iLAND. NEAR KONA?
Been testing NT25 for about 3 weeks. I'm liking it a lot.
First about DV & NT25. To go from DV to NT25 in most if not all cases would be counter productive. Since DV is already compressed, your footage would be uncompressed during playback /capture & then recompressed as NT25 which should give you a slight loss in quaility. As far as getting the advantage
to tweak the DV footage if it's not right, well assuming your editing in VT4, I would capture the DV fotage via FIREWIRE so no quaility loss then adjust color contrast etc in VT Edit & then render final or corrected footage as NT25.
The end reasons for NT25 are, for me, numerous. True for best quality you would want to save it as RTV or uncompressd but NT25 is a great runner up.
It looks good uses a lot less drive space and gives flexablity on feild order & pixel demensions (your not locked into the DV 720x480 pixel size).

Hope this helps,
J.R.