Comments on: MPEG-2 is DEAD!

By: dan

dan — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 13:09:24 +0000

“Finally, nobody watches HD frame by frame”….
ok… i’d better stop directing/edting/grading/fx all togeather coz that stuff out of the camera always looks good… as long as I shoot it.

By: dan

dan — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 13:07:54 +0000

in regards to the above…
from an editors/compositors perspective we do watch ” HD frame by frame with their nose to the screen” for a job… and if footage has ugly compression, the obvious greenscreens, color corrections in the dark areas, even graduated skies with even the least of compression between colors… us in post don’t really care what it was shot on, as it often becomes unusabe… for when it’s ready for people to not “watche HD frame by frame with their nose to the screen” but just sit back and enjoy. Go back to your DV website… you must be a sales man who learned the hard word… just like the guy at my tv shop, whoever you were.. as with an attitude like that, you will never be anyone useful in the technical realm.
cheers mate.

By: Carlos

Carlos — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 01:53:43 +0000

Here’s an email I thought I would share that I received about this article. This is just a summary of the full email and I’ll keep the sender anonymous:

“The fact of the matter is that Mpeg2 as an acquisition format is alive and well currently the best selling camera system in the world is XDCAM EX, which is a format based on Mpeg2.

Whether you like it or not, Mpeg2 acquisition is alive and well, and what I’m looking for on DV Info Net are articles and reviews about how to use it, from real-world experience. I’m not interested in opinions about its viability. The reality is that It is here and it’s now, and that’s what we deal with on the site.

Same for Mpeg4, AVCHD and DVCPRO HD. We don’t do format wars or platform wars or the which-is-better nonsense. All of these formats have their good points and bad. We cover all of them equally and fairly.

Finally, nobody watches HD frame by frame with their nose to the screen. HD is best analyzed the same way the audience sees it: from a normal viewing distance, in full motion. “

By: Joel Peregrine

Joel Peregrine — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:23:34 +0000

I think there has to be consideration given to the ease of which the footage is edited. You can’t (yet, least) plop AVCHD on an FCP timeline and get busy. Until that is possible a lot of shooters don’t see the improvement in image clarity as enough incentive to use AVCHD. Many are coming from SD editing and are more than satisfied with MPEG-2 codecs and their efficiency.

By: Carlos

Carlos — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:10:27 +0000

It’s not rubbish at all actually. My camera is just extremely close to the HDTV so one can see the artifacting that is happening. Try looking closely frame by frame on some of the JVC Footage that is posted on DVInfo.

Here is a good example of MPEG2 Breakage:
http://files.dvinfo.net/dashwoodHM700/DASH0093_01_720p60overcrank-MOV.zip

Watch this footage frame-by frame as the dog splashes into the water. If you have an HDTV or External Monitor, even better. You will see the breakage of the codec.

By: matt

matt — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:13:46 +0000

this is rubbish test – increase the shutter speed and you will have yr pic