This is a question I posted to a video-related mailing list. They didn't have any answers, but one person did suggest I visit here. I'm re-posting this email in the hopes that someone would actually have experience with this...
---------------------------------------
I'll be seriously impressed if someone can solve this one...
A television station I do work for needs to transfer packages from it's remote office. The old method used to be by microwave transmitter. But that was a hassle because they had to use Public TV's microwave and the quality was suffering a bit. Their new method is to transfer the edited packages through FTP on a broadband line. DV files were way to large to practically transfer over the Internet. So, their solution was to have the remote office edit the package, then convert to the compressed DiVX format for transfer over the Internet.
The solution is good for the file size part of the equation, but the quality issue remains. What they're doing now is importing the files into Premiere on some kind of Pinnacle system, then exporting the project out to BetaSP. As you might imagine, the final product looks something like some of the CNN footage from third-world nations. That is, it looks like digital footage. Almost artifac-y and fast motion doesn't do well at all. [edit: The look is something like the old silent films from the 20's.] They've been running the packages like this for month because they've found no solution. It's annoying me quite a bit now, so I had them burn me a file so I could take it home and see if I could do anything with it.
I've messed with all the settings, from aspect ratio, to de-interlace and flicker removal, and the footage only look marginally better than the stuff they've been airing. My question is, is there some secret to getting the DiVX to look good once converted to DV? Or is it properties of the transcoding process that inherently make the conversion look so bad? I've searched the Internet and not found many people with experience in moving a file from DiVX to DV. For the sake of quality, I'd really like to help the station out.
Any thoughts?
Thanks,
Brian
---------------------------------------
I'll be seriously impressed if someone can solve this one...
A television station I do work for needs to transfer packages from it's remote office. The old method used to be by microwave transmitter. But that was a hassle because they had to use Public TV's microwave and the quality was suffering a bit. Their new method is to transfer the edited packages through FTP on a broadband line. DV files were way to large to practically transfer over the Internet. So, their solution was to have the remote office edit the package, then convert to the compressed DiVX format for transfer over the Internet.
The solution is good for the file size part of the equation, but the quality issue remains. What they're doing now is importing the files into Premiere on some kind of Pinnacle system, then exporting the project out to BetaSP. As you might imagine, the final product looks something like some of the CNN footage from third-world nations. That is, it looks like digital footage. Almost artifac-y and fast motion doesn't do well at all. [edit: The look is something like the old silent films from the 20's.] They've been running the packages like this for month because they've found no solution. It's annoying me quite a bit now, so I had them burn me a file so I could take it home and see if I could do anything with it.
I've messed with all the settings, from aspect ratio, to de-interlace and flicker removal, and the footage only look marginally better than the stuff they've been airing. My question is, is there some secret to getting the DiVX to look good once converted to DV? Or is it properties of the transcoding process that inherently make the conversion look so bad? I've searched the Internet and not found many people with experience in moving a file from DiVX to DV. For the sake of quality, I'd really like to help the station out.
Any thoughts?
Thanks,
Brian
Comment