true that it won't "do any good" but the client wants uncompressed AVI. I didn't mean uncompressed DV, sorry. They want a bit-for-bit transfer that's completely lossless. Whether or not it does any good is beside the point. I need to deliver what they want and I just need to know how big it will be so I can calculate storage and costs.

thanks

does your client have any idea about video, especially dv?

dv is dv, COPY it to your hearts content, it remains 'lossless' it's digital.

<sigh>

Maybe this wasn't the right place to ask this question?

let me put it this way: does anyone, off the top of their head, know how much space 720x480 uncompressed AVI video takes up per minute? per hour?

thank you.

You know. You could figure this out yourself. Install Lagarith codec and render out about 10 minutes of video. Then, multiply that by 6 to get the per hour size. Lagarith is the most efficient loss-less codec around.

Maybe this wasn't the right place to ask this question?

It is.
There is NO DIFFERENCE between a DV-AVI file and that same DV-AVI file rendered as uncompressed other than a LOT of wasted hard drive space.
We're trying to understand why you won't explain this to your client.
Maybe you're a glutton for punishment :-)

The properties for 15 sec. of DV-AVI says 596 MB (625,336,320 bytes).
You do the rest of the math.

Mike

The basic question is easy to answer by just using Google OR by rendering one minute of 720x480 video to an uncompressed file and then multiplying by 60. The answer is that 720x480 uncompressed video consumes 2.36 GB/minute which, if you multiply by 60, equals 142 GB/hour.

Feel free to use Google to verify these numbers

The DV video which you capture from your camera consumes about 13 GB/hour, or less than 1/10 that amount.

However, I think you need to understand what musicvid and ushere were trying to tell you, namely that your client really doesn't know what he is asking for. His request is not logical, and you need to talk him out of his request.

Why?

Well, when you capture a DV tape, you are simply copying the bits from the tape. The quality captured on that tape is transferred -- exactly -- to your computer. There is zero loss in quality. It is as good as it can possibly be. If you do cuts-only on that video in Vegas, it will not disturb or change one pixel of your video and again, when you output to DV, the resulting video will be not just as good as the original, it will BE IDENTICAL to the original video.

Finally, there is no improvement in quality that you gain by rendering to uncompressed AVI. For the task you are describing, it is a complete and total waste of time and money. You are going to require ten times the storage, and the video will take far longer to work with.

I don't know a nice way to say this, so here it is: It is just a stupid thing to do.

Sorry about that.

so, there's NO DIFFERENCE between capturing a DV tape as DV, versus capturing as uncompressed? I'm not talking about rendering to uncompressed once it's a DV file. That sounds the same to me as saying there's no difference between recording an mp3 file into a computer as .wav versus recording it as another mp3 file. One you're compressing twice and the other you're not.

I don't have the ability to change my client's mind as I'm simply filling out a proposal based on specs they outlined in the RFP.

they want uncompressed .dv (sounds like they're thinking of a Mac based file right there)

also, there might be VHS and betacam tapes being captured, which they would want as uncompressed .dv files.

ooh a math question!

720x480 @ 29.970fps x 1 min = 1.84 GB
720x480 @ 29.970fps x60min =110.4GB

approx 9 hours per terabyte

Streams
Video: 00:01:00.060, 29.970 fps, 720x480x24, Uncompressed
Audio: 00:01:00.060, 48,000 Hz, 16 Bit, Stereo,Uncompressed
Size: 1.84 GB (1,879,308,800 bytes)

so, there's NO DIFFERENCE between capturing a DV tape as DV, versus capturing as uncompressed? Once the bits are on DV tape -- even though I tried to be clear -- there is nothing you can do to improve this. It is a totally, fruitless, stupid, pointless exercise to capture or convert to uncompressed.

The only uncompressed option that would make any sense -- and this would be dependent on the camera -- would be to NOT RECORD ON THE TAPE in the first place. Instead, if you are in a studio, you could take the analog output from the camera and feed that into some sort of capture device and, from that device, capture to uncompressed, if that is really the holy grail your client truly wants. Other people here will have to chime in as to whether the potential for improved color gamut (by not using the DV codec at all) would compensate for having to convert to/from the analog realm.

However, once you have the video on tape, you and your client are wasting time and money to put the video in uncompressed form. While I am all for giving the client what they want, if the client exhibits suicidal tendencies or barks at the moon, I usually try to find another place to earn my living.

Lagarith isn't uncompressed though.

Uncompressed SD video:
720x480x3x29.97 + audio=
29.9MB/second, 1.75GB/minute, 105GB/hour.

On the other hand, DV at exactly the same quality:
3.75MB/second, 225MB/minute, 13.2GB/hour, or about 1/8 the size of uncompressed.

Your client doesn't want uncompressed. They may think they do, but that's only because they don't really understand. You need to explain that you're a pro and know the correct method. Capturing DV is really a bit-for-bit transfer of what's on the tape to a hard drive file and will be exactly the same as what is on the tape.

ok, thanks everyone. Wasn't trying to be lazy and I forgot that DV tape cature was just that - a copy of the original. You're right that what they're asking for is total overkill.

I'm just doing many things at once and I thought if I could easily get this one question answered here, it would save me some time.

I appreciate all the time that went into everyone's answers, even if it was just to shut me up! :)

This is the right place to ask if you want and are willing to accept a correct answer.

DV from DV is "a bit-for-bit transfer that's completely lossless." It processes at 25Mbs.

Your producer may be misinformed.
FWIW, uncompressed AVI @SD would come in at 300-350 Mbs, depending on if it is 4:3 or 16:9. That is "approximately" 145GB per hour of material, again with absolutely no advantage over an exact copy DV-AVI.

DV-AVI, on the other hand is commonly acknowledged at 11GB per hour. That is a 13X savings in file size, and thus disc space with absolutely no loss.

Add to that the conversion of PAR to 1.000, which is what uncompressed AVI accepts, and then recalculating the SAR and stretching the output to compensate, which can be a bit of a toot in itself, and your <sigh> becomes an <oic>

Hope this helps.

I would guess that the problem here is that the client has misused the term "uncompressed", and what they really meant was "without further compression".

I remember when DV first arrived it was understood that the compression which happened in the camera as the tape was shot was approximately 5:1. Prior to this we captured MJPEG through a "capture board" via analogue connections, and we could specify what compression we wanted, depending on space available and quality desired. The "top quality was around 2½ to 1, but 5:1 was fine, and even 12.1 was passable for some jobs.

Anyway, the great advance of digital tape was that firstly the picture quality was excellent, and secondly that when the tape was "captured" it was in fact a direct copy onto hard drive, which is where we came in several posts ago ...

What Peter, John an others are saying, and that your client may not understand, is that there is no such thing as uncompressed DV. The video is compressed 5:1 inside the camera to the AVI files that we like to work with. A DV tape from a DV camera will need a little under 14Gb per hour of video. (You can put about 70- to 72-hours on one 1-Terrabyte disk. If my math is correct).

I have to say that this has been a good thread. Its been awhile since I've thought of transfering footage. It was nice to review it again in this detail.

I'd wish I could have such a project, we had just retired one of our older systems to doing such tasks.

Chad

CDM, if it is a proposal you are responding to and another responder takes the time to explain to the requestor why they should consider straight DV, who do you think will be rewarded the contract?

jerry

I actually don't think they're necessarily wrong in their wording, because a .dv file is a quicktime file on a Mac system and you CAN have an uncompressed .dv file. That's not the same as an uncompressed DV file. However, you are all right in that an uncompressed DV file is completely pointless and I will make sure they know this.

thank you all for your time and efforts.