#Novice Goin to Video
31 messages in this thread
Help! I could use the advice of anybody who is going out to video so that can
make my next purchase a wise one.
I recently bought a Targa+ with the thought of buying a SVHS deck, the Sanyo,
you know the one, but since then I have been hearing alot about the PAR as an
alternative.
I should mention that this is just a hobby for me and I have no desire to spend
$10,000 for this hardware, but creating animations for the computer, well, I
have gone about as far as I car to without creating 20 meg animations.
My concerns are:
1. Is the PAR as realiable as they say it is? No skipped frames and the
sort.
2. Do decks (The Sanyo especially) require considerable amount of
maintainence?
3. How does the quality compare. (I've read the reviews, but they seem
bias.)
4. If I purchase the PAR, do I need my Targa+, (I could use the cash I
spent on the Targa for things like food and rent.)
I plan on going one way or the other before the end of November.
Neil:
I would get the PAR and an El Cheapo Circuit City SVHS deck for what you are
doing. It'll save you money, and time, and be higher quality!
Greg Pyros
Greg Pyros:
Your advice was welcome and appreciated.
Thank you,
Neil
The PAR will definitely blow an S-VHS or Hi-8 deck away quality wise, records
easier, faster, more flexibly, and more reliably. And it costs way less than
a framebuffer + VTR controller + frame accurate VTR. No contest, IMHO.
John Tissavary (LUNA cie, inc)
Yes, if you don't BetaCam quality or higher, Right?
It's my understanding the PAR is fine for VHS quality, but struggles with
something near D1.
Is this true? We are looking at the MAX and I think we're about to go that way.
Currently, we use a sony BetaCam-SP deck, soft VTR, and a T32+. Slow, but
RARELY have any problems. No dropped frams, no noise, no tape stretches, ect.
ect. ect.
I have found that ALL the problems stated in this thread are indicative of
video formats below BetaCam.
No matter what deck, or what controller I use, SVHS seems to dog me. It really
angers me sometimes.
It's cheaper to take my deck into a suite and transcode it to SVHS. No
deadlines missed
I don't have a PAR – I do have a MAX and love it dearly. I just recommend the
PAR for people who can't justify the extra $$$ for the extra quality (MAX is
rather more expensive in initial $$$ unless you've already got an Ill Pro).
John Tissavary (LUNA cie, inc)
John T.
I'm not familiar with the MAX. I will take a look for it in some of the
catalogs I've acquired. Perhaps the extra bucks is worth it. I could always
sell some blood.
Neil
Chris, Not sure what decks you've used, but I have a JVC BRS822 and a Sony
UVW1800 that I use in my suite for FxF recording. The JVC works just fine and I
have had no problems at all. I think the BetaCam works and looks better, but
the difference is oh-so small, you really have to try hard to see a difference.
The only difference may be that I use VMI's VLAN hardware instead of software
to control the decks.
Regards,
Tom
John,
That seems to be the consensus.
Neil
>>The PAR will definitely blow an S-VHS or Hi-8 deck away quality wise>>
John, could you please clarify this statement? Does it also apply to Betacam SP
in your opinion? Since there is only small, but decernable, difference in the
spec's of the various machines, I would like to know what you base this
statement on. I'm not trying to start an argument, I respect your opinion and
inquiring minds want to know….
Thanks,
Tom
To me there's quite a huge difference between S-VHS and BetaSP, so…
The PAR is not BetaSP quality. While the signal is right up there (surpasses
it, I believe), the throuput of the IDE HD is too low to provide visually
lossless compression. There is an overall degradation of the images that cause
me to find the PAR's quality slightly less than Beta SP.
John Tissavary (LUNA cie, inc)
What you said is true as a "rule of thumb" Obviously, at comp ratios of 10 to
15 : 1 it must be true. BUT, it takes a trained eye / Captain Sherlock Video
with a BVM type magnifying glass to see it. The vast "majority" of animation
is very clean and looks lossless. Therefore I classify it beta SP quality.
Frame grabbing with the TBC IV is a different story and artifacts are easy to
pick out but still requires a good monitor to do so. I think the consensus in
the broadcast industry is now that anything greater than 3:1 compression is
lossy and not of original broadcast tape format quality. This is one reason
FAST has decided to redesign their DPR for a maximum of 3:1 comp ratio with the
ability to do "off line" at up to 100:1, selectable by the user. They want to
be the best NLE system in the industry.
I have a question for you and others somewhat on the subject: Have you ever
experimented with the pixel size in 3DS? The statement in the 3DS.set file
talks about "ropiness" along the edges. One of the comments I recall Martin
Foster making about the PAR/MAX comparison was that the PAR showed some
"ropiness" on the edges as the artifact he saw. My question is, Could this
artifact be eliminated or reduced by adjustment of this pixel size? I believe
the setting of 1.5 would give higher quality. The default is 1.1. What are
your thoughts on this?
I have noticed that, in areas of high edge contrast, even a pixel size of 1.5
will yield a _slight_ amount of ropiness. But, as you said, using 1.5 instead
of a lower value certainly goes a long way towards cleaning/covering up any
artifacts.
— James — MAP —
Don:
>> Pixel size of 1.5…
Remember, you can set the pixel size higher (to 2.0 if you want) by letting the
program know via the MAX-PIXEL-SIZE non-documented in the 3DS.SET file…
Greg Pyros
I agree that it takes a trained eye to see the difference between PAR/MAX and
straight BetaSP.
I've noticed ropiness on the MAX, too. Certain types of edges seem to be
worst, and I'm beggining to suspect that color has some sort of effect too, but
can't put my finger on it, and don't really have time to experiment right now.
I'll try using different pixel sizes on test renderings, though – sounds like a
good hypothesis to check out <g>
John Tissavary (LUNA cie, inc)
I know what you mean. Busy-Busy right now. I just delivered two animations
and have one more to go. Got some amateurs 7 hours of video SVHS stuff to edit
of beauty contest stuff. Last night I fell asleep screening the footage.
Can't wait — vacation for 6 days at Disney world next week. I'm ready for
it!. I'm only checking into CIS once a day now and it takes an hour to wade
through the forum. Let me know if you try that pixel test.
Beauty contest editing? Sounds like just what I need for my insomnia <g>!
I'll let you know when I get a chance to try different pixel sizes.
John Tissavary (LUNA cie, inc)
Those musta' been some real beauts, Don. <g>
Seriously, have fun on your vacation!
-Alan
Thanks John,
Confirms what I've heard about using _any_ CODEC's for video.
Cheers,
Tom
As far as the PAR goes . . .
Yes. It is very relaibale and has a solid image. You will not need the Targa+
with the PAR, but you may want to keep it around anyway as the dedicated
framebuffer can have its advantages.
Do you plan on selling your animations? If so, you could just rent a deck long
enough to dump the animation off your PAR.
— James — MAP —
James:
Thanks for your reply. Most of the answers I revcieve from animators have been
leaning towards the PAR. Nearly all of the dealers suggest the deck.
I would like to think that somewhere down the road this hobby may end up paying
for itself, either from side work out of my home or a position as animator in
some production facility. I currently have several clients buying my time for
mechanical design and 2D drafting services. This has paid for my Acad license
and my 386 several times over.
Thanks again, it looks like the PAR is winning so far.
Neil
Neil,
After using the PAR at work there is noway that I can even look at my recorder.
Do Not go with the deck dealers and invest in the PAR.
Kouros.
Kouros,
Your feelings are felt my many.
Neil
Hi Neil. I have been using the Sanyo GVR-S950 S-VHS deck for a couple of
months now. I've been plagued by _loads_ of problems involving all aspects of
my system since day one (hard drive crashes, incompatiblity problems, video
card nightmares, weeks to months-long waits, a well-meaning but often bungling
dealer, etc.). My Sanyo was a demo, little used, but I always get some type of
tape wear, dirt, or whatever–especially at the beginning of an animation.
Still waiting for the correct form of support …authorized repair stuff
…same old story…
Anyway, I chose the Sanyo over the PAR because it seemed I had heard
little about the PAR last winter when I began shopping, and had heard many good
things about the Sanyo (other than the vid noise, it works very well!). Yet
many of my struggles the last 3-6 months are directly related to my choice
(mostly surrounding my NTSC video cards–currently a Targa+64). With hindsight
I wish I had gone with the PAR, although it is probably naive of me to assume
things actually can work out of the box!
Let me know what you decide, or if you have any other questions. I just
started up this year and have probably faced many of the questions you will be
having should you take the plunge (bath, if $ is considered <g>). Good luck!
Paul
Paul: You should return the Sanyo ASAP for a new one. The first Sanyo deck I
had some problems video tears ect. The new one works very well. Brando
Paul,
Thanks for the insight. I have recieved several replies and the PAR has most
of the votes. I seems to me that the ability to go single frame has some
advantages, and this months Digital Video Mag. reviewed the Micropolis drive
and the PAR method doesn't work flawlessly either.
I also have had some problems with my Targa. When I render out to the frame
buffer, 3DS only uses 3 meg of ram and then starts paging to the drive big
time. I've been so busy working that I haven't had the time to even use it
often. That is in part why I'm not buying the Sanyo/PAR for a couple of
months.
Neil
>>Digital Video Mag. reviewed the Micropolis drive and the PAR method doesn't
work flawlessly either.<<
I would be interested to know what issue has that article. I have a Micropolis
2217a and the PAR which work fine for me.
— James — MAP —
-James-
I am glad to here that your setup works as it looks as if I will go that way
(PAR) later this year.
The issue was September, 1994, Digital Video Mag., page 74. I case it's some
time before you may read this, let me quote a couple of lines from the article.
"After capturing several minutes of video, I discovered that it wasn't
perfect-I had experienced some loss of video as dropped frames. This was no
surprise as it will normally take a very high speed disk array to capture video
this fast."
"it is a great value and an excellent choice for those applications that do not
required the level of performance of a disk array."
While he (the author) makes no reference to animating to video, the claims made
by the manufacturer does not state that you will have to use a low, or lower
resolution to get that kind of transfer rate. He was also using a Mac.
Neil
>> "After capturing __several minutes__ of video, […] it wasn't perfect <<
This is true. The PAR has to use a _constant_ compression factor for the
entire captured segment. This means that the most complex frame of video
determines the amount compression applied to the _entire_ segment. Frame
dropouts are likely the cause of using to low of compression factor for the
segment (read operator error).
Thus, shorter captures will yield higher quality. I, however, do not do
rotoscoping with the PAR, so I am not the most qualified to discuss it.
>> "it is a great value and an excellent choice for those applications that do
not required the level of performance of a disk array." <<
Also true. The PAR is a JPEG compression device. By its very nature, it
cannot be equal in quality to an uncompressed disk array like an Abekas.
However, given the 10 factor price difference between the PAR and a DDR, I
would say the PAR certainly has acceptable quality for its price.
>> the manufacturer does not state that you will have to use a low, or lower
resolution to get that kind of transfer rate. <<
The manufacturer's claim is correct. The resolution remains at 752×480. The
transfer rate is tied directly to the performance of the dedicated hard drive.
What influences the quality is the amount of JPEG compression needed to fit the
data beneath the transfer rate of the drive. Note that the amount of
compression is calculated individually for each frame of an animation.
>> He was also using a Mac. <<
I was not aware that there was a version for the Mac. I though there was only
Amiga and PC versions. It _would_ be logical to make a Mac version, though.
— James — MAP —
James, The article Neil is referring to is a review of the Micropolis drive –
not the PAR. The reviewer was using a Mac and VideoVision Studio capture card.
After lurking about here for awhile, I have gathered from your messages to Wade
that you had a good time here in Florida. I'm glad to here that. Even though I
don't anticipate coming to Kalamazoo anytime soon, I am looking forward to the
next time we meet.
tjl
>> Even though I don't anticipate coming to Kalamazoo anytime soon, I am
looking forward to the next time we meet. <<
Likewise! And, yes, I had a great time with you & Wade & many others I met for
the first time. I am already anticipating LA95!!
— James — MAP —