I am obtaining video footage (no audio) of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust from the National Archives. The agency that is copying the footage can send it to me in any format I like. If quality of my final output (a DVD made in Final Cut Studio) is the most important issue, what format should I have them use to copy and send me the video? Quicktime? Uncompressed Quicktime? MPEG?

Of course you aren't obtaining video footage of Nazi Germany. You are obtaining a copy of a video transfer made by an unspecified optical method from what could be either 16 mm or 35 mm cine footage. Are you planning to analyze these films, aesthetically or in any detailed way, or are they background illustrations? Even as background illustrations, do you want your audience to appreciate that Nazi Germany was excellent in film technique and in film propaganda. "In 1937 the Arri Group introduced the world's first reflex mirror shutter in the Arriflex 35 camera ... This technology is still employed today in almost every motion picture camera." Then you should strive to make the background illustrations technically superior to the rest of your film.

Dennis Couzin
Berlin, Germany

You should ask for uncompressed.
From there you can decide what to do with it - make it look good or bad or as it is.

Andreas

I guess uncompressed Quicktime is the answer? I am not interested in making it look older or grainier than it already is. I want it to be as clear as possible.

10 bit uncompressed QuickTime for Standard Definition occupies about 1.5 Gigabytes per minute. The DVD output you contemplate occupies only about 0.05 Gigabyte per minute. So the uncompressed source is overkill. A nice compromise would be DV compressed QuickTime which occupies about 0.2 Gigabytes per minute.

Dennis Couzin
Berlin, Germany

> 10 bit uncompressed QuickTime for Standard Definition occupies about 1.5 Gigabytes per
> minute. The DVD output you contemplate occupies only about 0.05 Gigabyte per minute. So the
> uncompressed source is overkill.

I disagree. Garbage In, Garbage Out. The MPEG-2 encoding for the DVD process is simply one step at the end. Uncompressed SD would allow you to still make DV offline if you want to, and when you get to the DVD stage, higher-quality source material will yield a better-looking DVD. If you're getting DV right from the start, then that's the highest you can go.

If the first-stage raw material was actual film, then if resources and circumstances allowed, I would even ask for Uncompressed HD copies. Again, you can always step down in quality if you have the best quality to begin with.

> do you want your audience to appreciate that Nazi Germany was excellent in film technique
> and in film propaganda. "In 1937 the Arri Group introduced the world's first reflex mirror
> shutter in the Arriflex 35 camera ... This technology is still employed today in almost every
> motion picture camera." Then you should strive to make the background illustrations
> technically superior to the rest of your film.

Huh?
When did we get into this discussion?


www.derekmok.com

Quote
derek
When did we get into this discussion?

Good question.
Andreas

FYI: Most of the source tapes are in Betacam SP format. A few are VHS tapes. You guys are great. Thank you so much for all the comments so far. I am not interested in a particular "look"--I want the highest quality reproduction possible in terms of clarity.

To derekmok: "Garbage In, Garbage Out" is a slogan, no substitute for quantitative details. The questioner was definite that his/her output would be a DVD. Since you implied that DV is garbage, then surely MPEG2 is garbage, so your unquantitative lesson is finished, tout court.

Uncompressed input with 30 times the information density of the intended output is overkill. Such huge ratios confer no visible or measurable improvements. Such huge files are an unnecessary nuisance. If the archival footage is many minutes long (to allow good editorial selections) then if uncompressed it must come on many DVDs or even on a portable hard drive.

Someone with very good knowledge of the different codecs might be able to show that DV compression followed by MPEG2 compression has some weaknesses which MPEG2 compression alone avoids. This would not be because every compression followed by MPEG2 compression has weaknesses which MPEG2 compression alone avoids. It would be due to particulars. The "Garbage In, Garbage Out" slogan is really a throwback to analog times, when image weaknesses simply accrued and accrued.

What is also needed from the questioner, in order to give him/her a serious answer, is how the non-archival video material will be shot and captured.

Dennis Couzin
Berlin, Germany

The film I just completed uses A LOT of WWII footage from the National Archives. Most "History Channel" shows just have the archives copy the 3/4" reference tapes....they call this broadcast quality. But if you are really interested in quality, then do what I did...have the 35mm prints sent to Bono Labs (a lab certified by the National Archives to handle their materials) and transfer them to high-definition D1 tapes.

You can downconvert to DV Cam to edit, or even edit in HD if you have the horsepower. As the film are 4:3 and HD is 16:9, you'll have to specifice if you want columns to either side of the full image, or select a portion of the image...top or bottom...to be cropped out.

DK