Transfers which would give better results/

[scottbobo2]

Transfering k-40 film to video. Which would give the best images

1.Transfer to dvd-rom uncompressed avi file (frame by frame)

2.Transfering to minidv (workprinter) (frame by frame)

all footage would be edited on computer with adobe premiere,many sites are now promoting transfers uncompressed to dvd-rom for a better result than minidv. is it true?

[MovieStuff]

If you're going to edit in the DV codec, then having your footage transferred uncompressed to ROM isn't going to gain you anything, really. The DV codec is still going to be the bottleneck. For you to gain anything, you'd need a system that also edits uncompressed. I am not an expert on compression codecs, etc. Someone here like Mattias would probably be better off to answer that question but I believe I am correct.

Roger

[schematic2]

hi scottbobo2

I think it would depend on the source of the video. If it comes from the use of a DV camera, its already been compressed to the DV format before its saved. Storing it uncompressed would make no sense (too large). Its already lost a small amount of detail when it was created. If you want to edit and resave many times, then be sure to use a lossless codec like Huffyuv when you save your enitial and following edits. It will reduce a uncompressed file to half its size. Uncompressed video runs approx. 1 gig for 1minute of run time at 720X480@30fps. Files get large in a hurry. Once you are done editing, save the file as an AVI (Huffyuv codec compression) Then use a stand alone like "TMPGenc" to do the final compression for your application.

Just my meager opinion. . .

[Leon_Trinidad]

Here's my strategy. Always get the highest quality possible, unless cost is a factor. Then just ask yourself what your output will be. If you have your file uncompressed and want to edit it, let's say in dv codec in final cut or premiere. You can convert it in your editing program.

[christoph]

Transfering k-40 film to video. Which would give the best images

1.Transfer to dvd-rom uncompressed avi file (frame by frame)

2.Transfering to minidv (workprinter) (frame by frame)

all footage would be edited on computer with adobe premiere,many sites are now promoting transfers uncompressed to dvd-rom for a better result than minidv. is it true?

if the transfer 1. really uses a camera which can output uncompressed frames the quality will be better than the transfer 2. using DV tapes...

you get this quality gain with a few downsides though:
- you'll need a lot of DVDs if you have a lot of footage
- you need a high power editing system (which adobe premiere is *not* ;)
- you need a way to play out the final edit for other ppl to see it... which very likely put on a compression anyway except you have a digibeta recorder at home

so, it all depends.. if you're doing a short clip where postproduction image manipulation is an issue, go with the DVD route.. if you have to edit tons of footage and make a DV master in the end anyway, option 2. would be more comfortable.
++ christoph ++