Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Protools5LEGuy]

The Digital Hub that Steve Jobs sold to us is still current, somehow


With a DV video camera you could record SD (Standard Definition) videos, capture them in your Mac with firewire speed (1 playback in the cam), edit them with FCP/Premiere and export to DVD with DVDStudioPro all in Mac OS 9. That is still current.

Very little people keep using DV equipment today. Pro has gone 4K and mainstream we have smartphones as camcorders.

I have several android smartphones. They have been the perfect device for portable music player/camera/videocamera/contact organizer since the last 10 years, killing for me the need of those 5 top devices.

Those smartphones let me record 720p Footage. I have been trying various camera apps to avoid the H264 codec. Cinema FV-5 let me records on MPEG 4 directly, as DoubleShot too.

That 720p MPEG4 3gp footage is converted to .MOV on OSX via Emicsoft videoconverter universal app. The ingest of files is made on OSX via PCI USB 2.0 card with VIA chipset (OSX only).  This step can be avoided on a OS9 only enviroment, maybe using a micro SD to SD converter + a SD to Compact Flash converter + a reader to Firewire for the ingest, and maybe tweaking the camera app to force files to be MP4, but for me is just faster to connect via USB 2.0 than opening the phones to extract the microSD card with the files to ingest it.

You could try with OS9 USB 1.1 speed, but booting to OSX for ingest/convert is more convenient for me.

Adobe Premiere 6.5 renders 4.5 frames/second on  720p MPEG4 project settings with my 867 Dual MDD with 2 Gigs of RAM and Asus Geforce2 MX 64 Meg on OS9.

I would say "slow" but relentless...  It can works with "High Definition" content!

[devils_advisor]

you got the footage on a drive now ?

[MacTron]

It is easiest than that.
As I have told in other occasions the main problem is the h264 codec.
I never liked video edition but I had to make a few works, and my work flow was:
1. Record the footage with my Samsung Galaxy S1 at 720p @ 30fps in MP4 format ( not h264 ).
2. Transfer the video files to a Mac Os 9 machine through USB.
3. Edit and Mix them directly with VideoShop.
4. Save a QuickTime file, with the non destructive mix, without rendering.
5. Render the final work with 3IVX codec (inside a QuickTime file).
6. The final file can be converted to avi or mp4 without re-rendering the video, only the audio. (AAC for MP4 and .MP3 for .AVI).

During all the process the video fragment as played and edited "as is" in mp4 format, without conversion. Only some effects and transitions are rendered, optionally the final work can be rendered to a "monolithic" QuickTime file.

You have to forget FC and Premiere to understand that Real Time 720p video editing in Mac Os 9 is possible (and 1080p with M-JPEG codec).

... and forget DV and DVD too. Especially the last one, it was an awful format since its inception.

I really hope you guys, start seriously with video edition ...

Since the first version, the QuickTime technology was the better video technology ever made, and when AVID realized this fact, begin to sabotage it, Adobe joined AVID a bit late, with the same target.

Foot Note: Since the first version, the QuickTime technology was the better video technology ever made, and when AVID realized this fact, begin to sabotage it, Adobe joined AVID a bit late, with the same target.
Final Cut was incorporated later, and comes with a totally alien technology, that is really worse than QuickTime based Apps. Even though Premiere have some Quicktime enabled version, it loose this heritage and began the Apple QuickTime sabotage.

[devils_advisor]

lets just say we never work in full hd on a mac os9 machine. Why? Simple you missing the codecs. None of them will have the full color range of a full blown hd codec. And another thing, after effects could handle stills well beyond the hd size. Infact it was made to handle pretty much anything you throw at it as long as you have a codec available. But working in hd? No certainly not. At best you work with the width and height of a hd frame but there is more to it. We can still get video out of that machine and blow it up to hd on another machine. One more thing, mactron there is no such thing as working on video without re render

[MacTron]

lets just say we never work in full hd on a mac os9 machine.

... you can sit down and look to this picture the time you need ...

Why? Simple you missing the codecs. None of them will have the full color range of a full blown hd codec.

Video definition is independent of the codec, despite some codecs have limited definion range (as DV codecs) others don't .  Color range and color space is theoretically independent of the video codec. Despite some codecs implementations have a very bad color range (Apple DV codec) ...

And another thing, after effects could handle stills well beyond the hd size. Infact it was made to handle pretty much anything you throw at it as long as you have a codec available. But working in hd? No certainly not.

... you can  look to this picture again ...

At best you work with the width and height of a hd frame but there is more to it. We can still get video out of that machine and blow it up to hd on another machine.

One more thing, mactron there is no such thing as working on video without re render

... Well I have to enhance my  limited English skills, I know ... 
but with the word "re-rendering", I wish to say the ability of using the video  file and edit it directly, without wait for a format conversion, so if I open a couple of video files in MP4 format I coudl edit them, being in MP4 format all the time, without any format conversion or rendering. Only some effects and transitions are rendered, optionally the final work can be rendered to a "monolithic" QuickTime file.

That's the procedure I have explained before.

[Protools5LEGuy]

... you can sit down and look to this picture the time you need ...

Why? Simple you missing the codecs. None of them will have the full color range of a full blown hd codec.

Video definition is independent of the codec, despite some codecs have limited definion range (as DV codecs) others don't .  Color range and color space is theoretically independent of the video codec. Despite some codecs implementations have a very bad color range (Apple DV codec) ...

And another thing, after effects could handle stills well beyond the hd size. Infact it was made to handle pretty much anything you throw at it as long as you have a codec available. But working in hd? No certainly not.

... you can  look to this picture again ...

At best you work with the width and height of a hd frame but there is more to it. We can still get video out of that machine and blow it up to hd on another machine.

One more thing, mactron there is no such thing as working on video without re render

... Well I have to enhance my  limited English skills, I know ... 
but with the word "re-rendering", I wish to say the ability of using the video  file and edit it directly, without wait for a format conversion, so if I open a couple of video files in MP4 format I coudl edit them, being in MP4 format all the time, without any format conversion or rendering. Only some effects and transitions are rendered, optionally the final work can be rendered to a "monolithic" QuickTime file.

That's the procedure I have explained before.

How do you get Motion jpeg files?

[devils_advisor]

I call it Bull

Mjpg codec and a data rate of 3mb/s ?

a fullblown hd video couldnt be played in os9.

the data rate is so much higher. you working with a frame size of hd and thats it. your data rate means you are really working with a regular dv signal which is 3mb/s at best. im not sure how to convince you but you are clearly on the wrong path here. check the wiki for hd formats and data rates.

[IIO]

motion jpeg is a very old format and should be included with quicktime 3 and above

[IIO]

 and btw, motion jpeg in 1900x1200 probably looks far worse than H264 or newer in 320*240.

so if you want better quality, use OSX for video.

of course my perspective is one of somebody who does not record with cameras but creates video content right with coputers. these are processed uncompressed in OS9, and compressed later in OSX.

[MacTron]

and btw, motion jpeg in 1900x1200 probably looks far worse than H264 or newer in 320*240.

Absolutely NOT. Only uncompressed video looks better than MJPEG.

I call it Bull

Mjpg codec and a data rate of 3mb/s ?

I had deleted the video. So I can't manually check the data rate.
But it is irrelevant. The CPU of my MDD only start a "waiting state" when proccessing raw HD video at arround 120 MB/sec.

a fullblown hd video couldnt be played in os9.

the data rate is so much higher. you working with a frame size of hd and thats it. your data rate means you are really working with a regular dv signal which is 3mb/s at best. im not sure how to convince you but you are clearly on the wrong path here. check the wiki for hd formats and data rates.

So I'm doing something Impossible, as usually 

http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php/topic,3501.msg23890.html#msg23890

[IIO]

i am not mat but i cant resist

you are probably doiong something different than what you think.

the data rate of a HD video in televiosion format is about 30 mbit/s and it is easy to check against that: because uncompressed a vieo of that size is about 30mbyte/s, and the average compression of jepg is about 1:8.

a HD video should have a data rate of far beyond 140 mbit.

and what looks better.... i guess that is a matter of taste and mostly depends on the material. picture by picture compression can have advantages and disadvantages.

[MacTron]

This is going to nowhere. I have said from the beginning of this forum, that HD video editing in Mac Os 9 is possible. I have done it in the past (OK mainly 720p video). I have explained how, in several ocassions, ( in brief: with VideoShop  and the mp4 video codec). And I'm actually doing it  (  in brief: using Premiere and the MJPG codec ).
Of course a high end G4 is needed.
Nobody is forced to beliveme, the videos are out there:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXfohMIU2Yg&sns=em
[/youtube]

This is a 2'53" video at 1280x720 @ 25fps.
The MJPG video and uncompressed audio version is a 577.8 MB file.
The MP4 video and AAC audio version is a 31.7 MB file.
I don't care about data rate. you can do the math by yourself. Both videos play smooth on my Mac Os 9 computer. And both are real 1280x720 video, you can count the pixels if you wish.
I can attach the MP4 version if you don't have a youtube video access. ( The MJPG version is too large to be attached )

[devils_advisor]

my hd videos end up being several gigs in size. you dont work in full hd only the frame size. and yes you are right this is going nowhere because you trying to teach me something that i had to deal with for years and years. not even avid added hd to their line of product until osx and the machines grew (besides the hardware support)
i have a media 100 here no hd support under os9 and thats hardware based. this time you are wrong. your 3mb/s is a simple dv stream and a codec only doesnt make a format. i might give you a hd video and upload it to my dropbox so you can tell the difference. btw mp4 is not a codec. its only a container and you throw a codec at it at output time.

[MacTron]

my hd videos end up being several gigs in size. you dont work in full hd only the frame size. and yes you are right this is going nowhere because you trying to teach me something that i had to deal with for years and years. not even avid added hd to their line of product until osx and the machines grew (besides the hardware support)
i have a media 100 here no hd support under os9 and thats hardware based.

this time you are wrong. your 3mb/s is a simple dv stream

Why do you suppose this? I'm not using DV related stuff since 2002.
DV what a really bad technology BTW. Especially the Apple DV codecs.

and a codec only doesnt make a format.

Who are talking about formats ?

btw mp4 is not a codec. its only a container and you throw a codec at it at output time.

MP4 is a container  (based on QuickTime container BTW) and a wide family of video codecs. Starting with Divx, Xvid, 3ivx, h263, h263+, h264, h265, mp4 and a few more.

MP4 video can be inside MP4 container, AVI contairer, QuickTime container. Matroska container, wmv container and probably in some MPG-TS.

[IIO]

Nobody is forced to beliveme, the videos are out there:

well i guess that happens when i pretend to be devil:)

i said nowhere that it is not possible, i just doubt that you actually want to work with streams of only 3 mbit/s.

yes, one can calculate that if neccessary. where "no compression" would require 24 bits per pixel, "100%" will require 8.25 bits per pixel.

but not sure how to continue from here i think it should be right that 1:8 (around "35%" compression) results in 1/8 of that size.
of course the minimum, maximum and variance is never known because it depends on the material (except you cap the bandwidth, which to my knowlegde isnt possible with mjpeg)

2,000,000 pixels * 8 bits * 24 frames == 400,000,000 bit/s; at a typical compression of say 1:8 (which is good for mastering but not so good for further processing) --> 62,000,000 bit/s. if present plus metadata (per frame, probably irrelevant for high resolutions), and if present (which is obvious for editing) plus one alpha channel (+33%) --> 100,000,000; in mbyte/s --> 12,5 mbyte

which is 30 times more than you suggested but also 3 times less than what i thought... now i am more confused than before.

[IIO]

btw, in your example video there is less than 3% different pixels between frames.

[devils_advisor]

I take it back for now

i got another box because it smiled at me for 29 bucks and i couldnt resist. according to the manuals it can work in hd in os9. BUT
you gonna need a very very fast scsi raid or fiber raid. and i made a quad g5 sweat under hd pressure. lets see see how it goes but i expect not to much from my test.