Quick Quick I need assistance in picking a digital camera for Video Editing MPEG2 v.s. AVI

[steppinthrax]

OK this is the deal. I'm getting a copy of Adobe Premier Pro CS3 and a camcorder to match.

I'm looking at the Sony DCR-SR200. I was talking to some sales people and they said that is not a good camcorder because it records in MPEG-2 therefore you CAN'T do Frame-by-frame video editing in MPEG2?????? I called Adobe Systems sales and they said that is not so. You can do it. I was told though from the first guy that the quality of MPEG-2 would be bad when you do video editing.

Any advice

 

[gsellis]

I do not know about CS3, but I will take Adobe's word on it. Avid Liquid and Sony Vegas do frame by frame on MPEG-2. It used to not be done a few years back. Pinnacle introduced it first and Sony followed. In fact, that feature was one of the reason that folks thought Avid originally bought Pinnacle for.

I would believe a Adobe person over a random salesman unless that salesman works for Videoguys, B & H Photo or one of the other big video shops/vendors.

 

[steppinthrax]

Originally posted by: gsellis
I do not know about CS3, but I will take Adobe's word on it. Avid Liquid and Sony Vegas do frame by frame on MPEG-2. It used to not be done a few years back. Pinnacle introduced it first and Sony followed. In fact, that feature was one of the reason that folks thought Avid originally bought Pinnacle for.

I would believe a Adobe person over a random salesman unless that salesman works for Videoguys, B & H Photo or one of the other big video shops/vendors.

YES LOL This guy who told me you can't do framebyframe with mpeg2 was from B & H video.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: steppinthrax

Originally posted by: gsellis
I do not know about CS3, but I will take Adobe's word on it. Avid Liquid and Sony Vegas do frame by frame on MPEG-2. It used to not be done a few years back. Pinnacle introduced it first and Sony followed. In fact, that feature was one of the reason that folks thought Avid originally bought Pinnacle for.

I would believe a Adobe person over a random salesman unless that salesman works for Videoguys, B & H Photo or one of the other big video shops/vendors.

YES LOL This guy who told me you can't do framebyframe with mpeg2 was from B & H video.

That is wierd and I would not expect that from B&H. But if you want to ask a pro, go to videoguys.com and ask them. They sell and test the software. All of it.

 

[91TTZ]

Keep in mind that if the camera records in an interlaced format, it makes it harder to edit and really decreases the resolution when displaying on a computer. You'll end up having to deinterlace the video, which really kills the resolution (since you're basically stripping away every alternate line and then doubling the remaining ones)

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Keep in mind that if the camera records in an interlaced format, it makes it harder to edit and really decreases the resolution when displaying on a computer. You'll end up having to deinterlace the video, which really kills the resolution (since you're basically stripping away every alternate line and then doubling the remaining ones)

Huh? You realize that editors have been dealing with interlaced video for years as almost everything except PAL and HDV p formats are interlaced. What he is editing is MPEG-2, which is complicated by complete frames, and then a series of "changes" until then I frame. The newer editors can recalculate the I frames and the changes in the group of pictures. TV's are designed to display interlaced video.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Keep in mind that if the camera records in an interlaced format, it makes it harder to edit and really decreases the resolution when displaying on a computer. You'll end up having to deinterlace the video, which really kills the resolution (since you're basically stripping away every alternate line and then doubling the remaining ones)

Huh? You realize that editors have been dealing with interlaced video for years as almost everything except PAL and HDV p formats are interlaced. What he is editing is MPEG-2, which is complicated by complete frames, and then a series of "changes" until then I frame. The newer editors can recalculate the I frames and the changes in the group of pictures. TV's are designed to display interlaced video.

You still lose a great deal of resolution. Just because the programs are made to deal with interlaced video doesn't mean that they can get around the inherent limitations.

I challenge you to show me an editor that doesn't lose resolution when deinterlacing video.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Keep in mind that if the camera records in an interlaced format, it makes it harder to edit and really decreases the resolution when displaying on a computer. You'll end up having to deinterlace the video, which really kills the resolution (since you're basically stripping away every alternate line and then doubling the remaining ones)

Huh? You realize that editors have been dealing with interlaced video for years as almost everything except PAL and HDV p formats are interlaced. What he is editing is MPEG-2, which is complicated by complete frames, and then a series of "changes" until then I frame. The newer editors can recalculate the I frames and the changes in the group of pictures. TV's are designed to display interlaced video.

You still lose a great deal of resolution. Just because the programs are made to deal with interlaced video doesn't mean that they can get around the inherent limitations.

I challenge you to show me an editor that doesn't lose resolution when deinterlacing video.

Right after you show me a NTSC SD TV that cares. The OP never said his target was computer viewing. If his output is DVD and he has a native editor, it does not care unless the bitrates are changing in output and there is a significant recode.