Hi Piotr > > 1) the material is not going through a lossy intermediate format. DV is > > good but it's still lossy. Avoiding it results in a better overall > > result - less artifacting, lower bitrate for the same quality. > > Hm, that doesn't sound good. So I can't save my DV clips without > reencoding?
You can so long as no processing is going on. If all that's happening is a copy from one DV file to another then you won't be re-encoding. As soon as you do something which alters the video picture in any way (such as using a plugin, creating an overlayed title, fading between two clips etc) then you'll get a re-encoding step occuring over the portion of the video that the alteration occurs. > So, lets say I have grabbed from miniDV camcorder, cut and > pasted the recording, and finally had some clips which are ready to use. > So I shuffle them in the right order making the final video, adding > transitions and so on. Now it is ready to burn DVD, but I'd like also to > export this modified stuff (clips at least) to DV to have the same > (original quality) material. Is it possible not to loose the quality of > material compared to the one the tape? It depends on the nature of your editting and composition. You will certainly have a re-encoding step during the transitions for example, so at least at those times the quality will not be quite as good as the original. I should also point out that artifacting as a result of the DV compression is actually *much* less of an issue compared to the libdv encoder bug I mentioned; the libdv bug is *much* more obvious, especially when the footage is played back on an interlaced monitor. You would probably have a hard time picking re-encoded DV footage; the problem induced by libdv is far more obvious. > > That's the video side of things. For audio I usually deal with outside of > > Cinelerra. Ardour usually gets the gig most of the time since the mixdown > > usually involves a multitrack source, and Ardour's multitract audio features > > are more extensive than cinelerra's. Therefore I render the audio from > > Cinelerra as a WAV file which I then import into Ardour to use as a guide > > track. The mixdown happens, is rendered to WAV and finally encoded for DVD > > using (up to now) toolame. I'm thinking of moving to AAC soon though, but > > this will simply entail a change of encoder and isn't going to alter the > > workflow all that much. > > Hm, thats a lot of work in this workflow. So it must be very time > consuming? Not really, relatively speaking. The biggest time is consumed doing the actual multitrack mixing (which is to be expected) so for me I see no immediate need to change things. > I whish to have one intuitive tool to make it more productive > (in time domain). I wonder how could it be possible to integrate (well, > maybe better: to make them cooperate better) cinelerra and ardour > together. One click in the cinelerra, and the sound track is in the > ardour, process, click and hopla, in the cinelerra again. Hm.... I don't know; what I do works for me at the moment. There's a plan to integrate video support of some description into ardour around version 3 or 4, but it's anyone's guess as to how far away this is. In the meantime, the above process works fine for me. Note that for many projects there isn't any real need to step out of cinelerra. The stuff I'm doing is very audio-centred though, and that calls for a more feature-complete audio editor. > This is a pitty, that such programs are not 'aware' of each other. Once > upon a time there was an Amiga with its fine ARREX and 99% of the > programs utilised its strength to cooperate. When one util was weak in > some aspect, it simply called other one more specialized in this > particular task and was given back the result. Well, it is sad that it > is only history in computing now. I think one of the biggest issues here is that there is no standardised way in place to allow this to occur. It took ages for drag-n-drop to work under gnome and kde due to the lack of a suitable standard. The same goes for audio/video work. Having said that, coming up with a suitable standard would be very difficult since the needs of the different software is so diverse. The building blocks are certainly in place - in fact, the "lots of little tools which do their task well" is the unix philosophy. However, getting seemless integration between AV tools is a huge task, and at present priorities are (quite rightly in my opinion) elsewhere. Regards jonathan _______________________________________________ Cinelerra mailing list [email protected] https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra
