Forums Tag: digital

Forums Tag: digital http://videomaker.com/community/forums/ Forums Tag: digital en Thu, 08 Jan 2009 23:37:09 +0000 birdcat on "FREE STOCK FOOTAGE CONTEST!" http://videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/free-stock-footage-contest#post-39703 Fri, 29 Aug 2008 05:58:55 +0000 birdcat 39703@http://videomaker.com/community/forums/ Hey Jay - Is their stuff as good as VideoTraxx - Their prices are great - I'll probably order some of their stuff! Thanks for the link! Aspyrider on "FREE STOCK FOOTAGE CONTEST!" http://videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/free-stock-footage-contest#post-39702 Fri, 29 Aug 2008 05:36:37 +0000 Aspyrider 39702@http://videomaker.com/community/forums/ <a href="http://www.newdogdigital.com/">New Dog Digital</a> is running a free Stock Footage contest, over 30 gigs of free stuff! You'll need to submit a video on <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik0JOiLUZik">UTube</a> and then register on <a href="http://www.newdogdigital.com/product_A1surplus.htm">New Dog Digital</a>! Just make a video telling why you want the footage and get creative! Then go to <a href="http://www.newdogdigital.com/product_A1surplus.htm">New Dog Digital</a> and register. I have some of the Surplus Video collection and it is awesome! J. BrianHamby on "Great Opportunity!" http://videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/great-opportunity#post-39136 Mon, 11 Aug 2008 09:14:36 +0000 BrianHamby 39136@http://videomaker.com/community/forums/ Hi Guys, I've been in video production for the past 13 years. I started out doing weddings and any other events that paid (or didn't). After some time, I upgraded my cameras and computers, which allowed me to upgrade my services. I started producing local cable commercials for auto dealerships and eventually found a very steady income in real estate advertising. For eight years, I leased weekly slots of airtime from Time Warner Cable and produced a "video showcase of homes", that aired on the weekends. You've probably seen similar programming in your area. The real estate market was great and life was good. I put a system in place that was very efficient and allowed me to delegate and pay others to put the show together every week. Needless to say, with the downfall of the real estate market, so too went my bread and butter. My other clients (auto dealerships, local businesses) have scaled way back on their advertising as well. It has made life and work very interesting. But, we never quit! Ever! We get creative. We look outside of the box. Beyond the typical. What I've found is a TRUE source of extra income. I recently found a company that will pay $500 a pop selling their video email product. No downloads, no attachments and it is crystal clear! I am the ultimate skeptic. I analyze everything to the point that it's almost a curse. But, this is the real deal and they pay real money. I've started introducing it to my existing clients in both the automotive and real estate businesses and they love it! The potential for adding new customers because of this is unlimited. It is an incredible tool that we (the video production community) can add to our arsenal of services. I would encourage everyone to at least look at the opportunity. You have NOTHING to lose and KNOWLEDGE to gain. I think you'll be glad you did. I am. Please email me at <a href="mailto:bhamby@triad.rr.com">bhamby@triad.rr.com</a> and I can send you a video to watch. Or, you can call me at 336-269-2558 if you have any questions. Thank you so much for your time! ValleyKnitter on "Digital Broadcast" http://videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/digital-broadcast#post-38107 Thu, 10 Jul 2008 05:10:31 +0000 ValleyKnitter 38107@http://videomaker.com/community/forums/ For a detailed explanation of digital broadcast standards, see this article: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATSC_standards">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATSC_standards</a> For further info, follow the links on codecs, 8VSB and QAM. "Broadcast safe" is rather confusing: "TV safe" refers to the position of graphics or titles so that they will display on a home receiver. "Legal signal" is more descriptive of correct levels for transmission. robgrauert on "Digital Broadcast" http://videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/digital-broadcast#post-37533 Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:21:03 +0000 robgrauert 37533@http://videomaker.com/community/forums/ Wow. Great explanation. I had already had an idea of what broadcast safe/ a legal signal is, I just wasn't sure how the audio or video would interfere with one another. You explained that party very well. Also, I know most of the stuff I do doesn't get broadcasted, but with the freelance and internships that I do, I seem to be going in the direction of working in a broadcast environment. Thanks again. BarefootMedia on "Digital Broadcast" http://videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/digital-broadcast#post-37526 Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:03:38 +0000 BarefootMedia 37526@http://videomaker.com/community/forums/ I've never heard of "Broadcast Safe" but the wiki describes what we used to call a "legal signal," one that complied with broadcast standards. Now it should be obvious why the video signals have to match standards. There has never been a video reason to use black at 7.5 IRE and white at 80 IRE. The higher level for black cutoff does provide latitude for home viewers individual adjustments. But the rules about maximum white levels & audio levels are requirements for broadcasting. And I can teach you to recognize when either level is violated. But we now have to discuss how a TV signal is broadcast. Just like radio, TV is broadcast on carrier waves. The carrier wave is the channel's frequency and modifying the carrier by adding in the signal you want to broadcast, creates the broadcast signal. For radio, it's pretty much that simple. But a television signal consists of two entirely different elements, audio & video. Now if our video signal is modifying the main carrier wave, how can we add the sound? It was done by adding another carrier wave with a frequency only a tiny bit higher than the video's carrier signal. So you have to imagine the video signal as two carrier wave frequencies traveling together. So if you imagine each signal looks like an audio waveform, packed closely to each other. Now if the audio gets too loud, the audio waveform will grow in height until it is actually spreading into the area reserved for the video signals. Like two radio stations on the same frequency. So what happens when the audio signal is too loud? The video will have scan lines that pulse in relation to the sound level. You can literally see the sound. Now when the video is too bright, the waveforms get higher and intruded into the area reserved for the audio signal. When video is interfering with the audio, you hear a buzzing sound whose volume relates directly to the quantity of extreme white in the image. So now you know how to recognize an "illegal" or "not Broadcast Safe" signal when it is on your TV set. Now I've ran through this very quickly, so let me know if it makes sense. But Broadcast Standards are there to solve technical issues with how TV signals are broadcast. Why would this matter to us? Because our editors (both analogue & non-linear) don't have the same limitations. Because during the editing, we never see the signal as will be broadcast. Our edit suites deal with separate signals, video and/or audio travel different routes through our machines. So when you are editing, you really can't tell if your signals are "legal" unless you have meters to adjust the signals. So "Broadcast Safe" issues only arise when the audio & video signals are turned into one signal (with two signals combined.) The resulting signal is called an Radio Frequency signal, or an RF signal for short. There is only one time in the video process that we deal with RF signals. So playing tapes, DVD's, internet videos and virtually all the ways we watch video at home, either are or can be played back using their separate audio & video signals. But as soon as the signals are combined for RF broadcasting, all the "illegal" settings will suddenly cause problems. And even if you're using an RF converter to send the signal to your TV that doesn't have line inputs, RF signal problems will be created & played back on the TV. The only way to get out of "Broadcast Safe" standards is to never combine the audio & video into a single RF signal. Which isn't all that uncommon these days. Signals coming off playback devices as line outputs, won't exhibit the buzzing or strobing you'd see if you used the RF connector to view your video. Okay now that we all understand what "Broadcast Safe" means to analogue broadcasting, let's look into the exciting digital broadcast environment. There is a built-in confusion surrounding Digital Broadcasting. To start with, the broadcast signals are still analogue waves radiating out from the TV tower. They still must contain the separate audio & video signal data and do it within an even narrower channel to send it out. So digital broadcasting signals will look & act just the way analogue TV signals do. The only difference for us is how we decode the signals. I have to admit, I have no information about the construction of a digital broadcast signal. So I cannot tell you how combining the audio & video signals changes them. Or what goes on during the decoding. My guess is that digital broadcasting may have eliminated the old signal crosstalk that caused TV problems. But that's not the end of things. I'm sure you all have seen the PSA's about the coming transition. And you may recall that some of them mention that if you have cable or satellite TV, you don't have to do anything. That's because converter boxes are going to continue to sending an RF signal to drive your TV set. And the cable companies will continue to use RF signals to distribute programming because they don't have to convert to digital. Besides, the conversion would cost thousands of dollars for new devices to send the signal over the coaxial cable. And in the end, accomplish nothing the consumer could see. So that ain't happening. What this means for "Broadcast Safe" is that the standards need to be maintained. Not because illegal signals cause TV problems with digital broadcasting, but because the signals are still being converted to RF for distribution. And we expect that to be the case for some time in the future. And BTW, "Broadcast Safe" production really only matters if you are going to distribute your program via some sort of broadcast. The ill effects of RF conversion don't occur if you distribute via DVD's or web sites. You'll only have playback problems if the line signals have to be combined to move them into a device without line inputs. But in closing, I would like to add that although you don't have to conform to broadcast standards in your productions, you may want to consider that television screens are optimized to display signals meeting broadcast standards. If you are outside those standards, it is going to be difficult to get a perfect reproduction of your video. Inside the standards and every TV in every situation will have perfect playback reproduction (limited by how the owner has the set adjusted.) So good luck and stick to those "Broadcast Safe" standards. robgrauert on "Digital Broadcast" http://videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/digital-broadcast#post-37475 Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:48:23 +0000 robgrauert 37475@http://videomaker.com/community/forums/ No, it doesn't. That link tells me what broadcast safe standards are, which I already know. I wanted to know if you have to worry about thing being broadcast safe in the change to digital broadcast. film814 on "Digital Broadcast" http://videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/digital-broadcast#post-37461 Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:43:48 +0000 film814 37461@http://videomaker.com/community/forums/ Rob, This article from Wikipedia should answer your question. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_safe">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_safe</a> Jeremy robgrauert on "Digital Broadcast" http://videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/digital-broadcast#post-37460 Sun, 15 Jun 2008 17:34:43 +0000 robgrauert 37460@http://videomaker.com/community/forums/ cmoooon....no one knows? robgrauert on "Digital Broadcast" http://videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/digital-broadcast#post-37441 Sat, 14 Jun 2008 12:47:27 +0000 robgrauert 37441@http://videomaker.com/community/forums/ Hey Guys, I don't know much about broadcast or the analogue world, and I was just wondering: When broadcasting TV goes digital, will there be such a thing as "broadcast safe?" Didn't broadcast safe have to do with keeping your signal from interfering with another television wave? I just plain don't know.... BarefeetMedia? Any ideas? I recall you saying you've worked in broadcast for over 20 years. Coreece on "archiving vhs to mini-dv?" http://videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/archiving-vhs-to-mini-dv#post-33744 Sun, 18 Nov 2007 00:27:40 +0000 Coreece 33744@http://videomaker.com/community/forums/ The ADVC-100 is great, but I believe it over $200. I would recommend buying an older DV camera with analog inputs and using it as the converter. I recently found one at a pawn shop for $50 and it works great for converting my VHS. sheepdog on "archiving vhs to mini-dv?" http://videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/archiving-vhs-to-mini-dv#post-33735 Fri, 16 Nov 2007 22:45:50 +0000 sheepdog 33735@http://videomaker.com/community/forums/ I have a Canopus ADVC-100, it works great. jburkhart on "archiving vhs to mini-dv?" http://videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/archiving-vhs-to-mini-dv#post-33731 Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:52:57 +0000 jburkhart 33731@http://videomaker.com/community/forums/ Yes, it looks like that model of Sony Camcorder doesn't come with any analog inputs. You could use a device like the <a href="http://canopus.com/products/ADVC110/index.php">Canopus ADVC110</a> to do the conversion for you and come out DV that you could record onto your camcorder. We've used that model here to take some S-vhs footage and move it onto mini-DV with no troubles. giantonion on "archiving vhs to mini-dv?" http://videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/archiving-vhs-to-mini-dv#post-33728 Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:45:15 +0000 giantonion 33728@http://videomaker.com/community/forums/ I just recently purchased the Sony DCR HC 48 Handycam... after scouring Apple's iMovie discussion boards, it appears as though I will NOT be able to transfer VHS footage digitally using this camcorder as a pass through. This is definitely a problem for me, as I was hoping to archive many VHS tapes to mini-dv. The emphasis is to archive to mini-dv as opposed to importing all vhs footage directly into iMovie, which could ultimately tie up my internal hard drive (I would like to go through the tapes and edit them at a later date). If I buy an analog to digital converter, do you know if I can somehow transfer the vhs to a mini-dv cassette with this approach? Again, I would prefer not to directly copy footage into the computer. What about investing in a vcr/mini-dv unit such as the one linked below? It appears as though they are no longer manufacturing these but, given my situation, and the number of tapes I am hoping to archive (and eventually edit), it may be a wise purchase. <a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/JVC-SR-VS30U-Mini-DV-S-VHS-VCR_W0QQitemZ110189573382QQihZ001QQcategoryZ3318QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem"><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/JVC-SR-VS30U-Mini-DV-S-VHS-VCR_W0QQitemZ110189573382QQihZ001QQcategoryZ3318QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/JVC-SR-VS30U-Mini-DV-S-VHS-VCR_W0QQitemZ110189573382QQihZ001QQcategoryZ3318QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem</a> </a> Please write when you have a moment. Thank you in advance for your assistance... much appreciated!!! Regards, Joe