Ghost Rides Rocking Horse (Video)

Originally posted by phantomDX
reply to post by MarrsAttax

 

Had there been any degradation of the video while being digitized you would notice it immediately. Compression in general isn't a negative process.

STOP

How can an 'expert' claim compression is not a negative process?! Honestly, do you know what you're talking about at all? I'll take the first line from the dreaded wiki:

Video compression refers to reducing the quantity of data used to represent digital video images

Full Wiki entry here - Video Compression

True, old home video cameras are nowhere near the quality of the latest DV offerings but are significantly better than the youtube version we've seen.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by Goathief]

reply to post by Goathief


I must say I did wonder at that statement. I note from a few lines down in that wiki article (my emphasis)

Most video compression is lossy — it operates on the premise that much of the data present before compression is not necessary for achieving good perceptual quality. For example, DVDs use a video coding standard called MPEG-2 that can compress around two hours of video data by 15 to 30 times, while still producing a picture quality that is generally considered high-quality for standard-definition video. Video compression is a tradeoff between disk space, video quality, and the cost of hardware required to decompress the video in a reasonable time. However, if the video is overcompressed in a lossy manner, visible (and sometimes distracting) artifacts can appear.

These artifacts are immediately obvious to me in the video (at a glance if you will) but then who am I to argue with a self-proclaimed expect


Just to reiterate what we're talking about phantomDX has stated categorically:

I assure you there is no better copy than the one you have seen. The quality was on par for early 90's 8mm. There was no noticeable degradation due to being digitized.

also

Had there been any degradation of the video while being digitized you would notice it immediately

I've taken two screen caps from the video. These are 24-bit .bmp files. Normally on the web I would use jpg files but obviously you'd get a loss of quality due to the compression

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/14a6de49f07cf6e3.bmp[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/1d0c7ad7c3d7b510.bmp[/atsimg]

I think the degradation is obvious.



[edit on 13/3/2009 by MarrsAttax]

reply to post by MarrsAttax


based on my own MEAGRE experience with video - youtube " adds " an horrid extra compression process - and loss of quality

i am now engaged on the [ steep ] learning curve of videography - and with my own stuff [ addmittedly - ALL shot on DV , and most of it - on o solid state , DTE or hard disc capture ] what ever i do - shrinking / resizing compressed format codec - it ALLWAYS looks fine on my computer or if i share it on CDR / dvd-r - but EVERYTIME i put a peice on youtube - quality plummets - and it gets worse the more extreeme the resizing / compression i did before uploading it to youtube

reply to post by ignorant_ape


Thanks for that bit of info

It's good that people have backed me up on this. I think it's fairly clear that a better quality version than the one seen on youtube must exist and it is therefore worthwhile making efforts to get said video hosted somewhere else where it won't be subject to the same heavy compression.

All very valid questions and I could see how that would be confusing.

Degradation and artifacts are two separate things. If you have an hdtv with a digital/hd source you have artifacts in your picture but it does not effect the picture quality. All digital imagery has this it goes with the territory. Degradation is the image/video losing KEY information needed to accurately reproduce the source. HD we can all agree is the best picture quality outside of film...yes? Well HD is compressed as well. How did you think they got it onto the blueray or sent it to you through cable or satellite? Compression is not always a negative.

For instance. In the you tube video. Yes you see artifacts. but contrast,brightness and color are accurate for the lighting and format. The only way the actual tape would look better is that you would watch it on a tv or monitor not because it lost anything in the digitization process. Or in this case this tape didn't. Other bad compressions could make it impossible to view. Also darker environments make artifacts stick out giving the impression that the video is of lesser quality.

Analog is not a compressed format. All DV formats from professional to consumer are compressed with the DV codec. As all other forms of digital media. Yet all digital formats are considered to be the better format even with compression.

I appreciate that all of you went to the trouble of hunting down definitions of compression but if you don't know the practical application of compression then I can see how you would think you were on to something.

Don't stop though I understand why you feel the need to question what I say.

reply to post by phantomDX


Oh please, you talked absolute junk (again) and got called out on it thinking nobody would notice.

To say HD (Blu-ray) is the same quality (lossless) as the original film it was shot on is a flat-out lie. The same applies to 8mm film and youtube.

You categorically stated that "(video)compression isn't a negative process" - when that is exactly what it is. Video compression is the removal of data.

I do not for one minute believe you are a 'video expert', a self-proclaimed one for sure - I think that has more to do with your ego, which comes across as being rather large.

Don't stop though I understand why you feel the need to question what I say.

I think we will stop as you have added nothing of value, quite the opposite really. The reason we question is that it appears you are wrong in almost every post, do you really understand that?

[edit on 13-3-2009 by Goathief]

reply to post by Goathief


Wow. I reply with the exact information you asked for and you claim I said nothing and by the way whether you like it or not that is the way compression works. Compression comes in far to many flavors for that "digital video for dummies" definition you keep throwing up. Prime example of a little knowledge can get you in big trouble.

I never said HD was the same quality as film. I said that HD was the highest quality BESIDES FILM. You also took it for granted when you assumed incorrectly that HD is always sourced from film. Not sure where ya been but they have HD cams too and when you have a HD workflow which is using HD from shooting to finished product then technically it is superior to film. Ever seen SinCity or 300? HD from start to finish when a digital theater was the end product.

I have a feeling you are just gonna keep on claiming what I say is false without ever letting go of that one piece of information that you have so misrepresented. So I decided to go check out your source. Seems that you missed a few things. It's ok though you probably just got overwhelmed by the technical jargon so don't feel too bad.

Commonly used standards and codecs A variety of codecs can be implemented with relative ease on PCs and in consumer electronics equipment. It is therefore possible for multiple codecs to be available in the same product, avoiding the need to choose a single dominant codec for compatibility reasons. In the end it seems unlikely that one codec will replace them all. Some widely-used video codecs are listed below, starting with a chronological-order list of the ones specified in international standards. H.261: Used primarily in older videoconferencing and videotelephony products. H.261, developed by the ITU-T, was the first practical digital video compression standard. Essentially all subsequent standard video codec designs are based on it. It included such well-established concepts as YCbCr color representation, the 4:2:0 sampling format, 8-bit sample precision, 16x16 macroblocks, block-wise motion compensation, 8x8 block-wise discrete cosine transformation, zig-zag coefficient scanning, scalar quantization, run+value symbol mapping, and variable-length coding. H.261 supported only progressive scan video. MPEG-1 Part 2: Used for Video CDs, and also sometimes for online video. If the source video quality is good and the bitrate is high enough, VCD can look slightly better than VHS. To exceed VHS quality, a higher resolution would be necessary. However, to get a fully compliant VCD file, bitrates higher than 1150 kbit/s and resolutions higher than 352 x 288 should not be used. When it comes to compatibility, VCD has the highest compatibility of any digital video/audio system. Very few DVD players do not support VCD, but they all inherently support the MPEG-1 codec. Almost every computer in the world can also play videos using this codec. In terms of technical design, the most significant enhancements in MPEG-1 relative to H.261 were half-pel and bi-predictive motion compensation support. MPEG-1 supports only progressive scan video. MPEG-2 Part 2 (a common-text standard with H.262): Used on DVD, SVCD, and in most digital video broadcasting and cable distribution systems. When used on a standard DVD, it offers good picture quality and supports widescreen. When used on SVCD, it is not as good as DVD but is certainly better than VCD due to higher resolution and allowed bitrate. Though uncommon, MPEG-1 can also be used on SVCDs, and anywhere else MPEG-2 is allowed, as MPEG-2 decoders are inherently backwards compatible. In terms of technical design, the most significant enhancement in MPEG-2 relative to MPEG-1 was the addition of support for interlaced video. MPEG-2 is now considered an aged codec, but has tremendous market acceptance and a very large installed base. H.263: Used primarily foCommonly used standards and codecs

A variety of codecs can be implemented with relative ease on PCs and in consumer electronics equipment. It is therefore possible for multiple codecs to be available in the same product, avoiding the need to choose a single dominant codec for compatibility reasons. In the end it seems unlikely that one codec will replace them all. Some widely-used video codecs are listed below, starting with a chronological-order list of the ones specified in international standards.

H.261: Used primarily in older videoconferencing and videotelephony products. H.261, developed by the ITU-T, was the first practical digital video compression standard. Essentially all subsequent standard video codec designs are based on it. It included such well-established concepts as YCbCr color representation, the 4:2:0 sampling format, 8-bit sample precision, 16x16 macroblocks, block-wise motion compensation, 8x8 block-wise discrete cosine transformation, zig-zag coefficient scanning, scalar quantization, run+value symbol mapping, and variable-length coding. H.261 supported only progressive scan video.

MPEG-1 Part 2: Used for Video CDs, and also sometimes for online video. If the source video quality is good and the bitrate is high enough, VCD can look slightly better than VHS. To exceed VHS quality, a higher resolution would be necessary. However, to get a fully compliant VCD file, bitrates higher than 1150 kbit/s and resolutions higher than 352 x 288 should not be used. When it comes to compatibility, VCD has the highest compatibility of any digital video/audio system. Very few DVD players do not support VCD, but they all inherently support the MPEG-1 codec. Almost every computer in the world can also play videos using this codec. In terms of technical design, the most significant enhancements in MPEG-1 relative to H.261 were half-pel and bi-predictive motion compensation support. MPEG-1 supports only progressive scan video.

MPEG-2 Part 2 (a common-text standard with H.262): Used on DVD, SVCD, and in most digital video broadcasting and cable distribution systems. When used on a standard DVD, it offers good picture quality and supports widescreen. When used on SVCD, it is not as good as DVD but is certainly better than VCD due to higher resolution and allowed bitrate. Though uncommon, MPEG-1 can also be used on SVCDs, and anywhere else MPEG-2 is allowed, as MPEG-2 decoders are inherently backwards compatible. In terms of technical design, the most significant enhancement in MPEG-2 relative to MPEG-1 was the addition of support for interlaced video. MPEG-2 is now considered an aged codec, but has tremendous market acceptance and a very large installed base.

H.263: Used primarily for videoconferencing, videotelephony, and internet video. H.263 represented a significant step forward in standardized compression capability for progressive scan video. Especially at low bit rates, it could provide a substantial improvement in the bitrate needed to reach a given level of fidelity.

Sorenson Spark: A codec that was licensed to Macromedia for use in its Flash Player 6. In the same family as H.263.

MPEG-4 Part 2: An MPEG standard that can be used for internet, broadcast, and on storage media. It offers improved quality relative to MPEG-2 and the first version of H.263. Its major technical features beyond prior codec standards consisted of object-oriented coding features and a variety of other such features not necessarily intended for improvement of ordinary video coding compression capability. It also included some enhancements of compression capability, both by embracing capabilities developed in H.263 and by adding new ones such as quarter-pel motion compensation. Like MPEG-2, it supports both progressive scan and interlaced video.

DivX, Xvid, FFmpeg MPEG-4 and 3ivx: Different implementations of MPEG-4 Part 2.

MPEG-4 Part 10 (a technically aligned standard with the ITU-T's H.264 and often also referred to as AVC). This emerging new standard is the current state of the art of ITU-T and MPEG standardized compression technology, and is rapidly gaining adoption into a wide variety of applications. It contains a number of significant advances in compression capability, and it has recently been adopted into a number of company products, including for example the XBOX 360, PlayStation Portable, iPod, iPhone, the Nero Digital product suite, Mac OS X v10.4, as well as HD DVD/Blu-ray Disc.

x264: A GPL-licensed implementation of H.264 encoding standard, x264 is only an encoder.

VP6, VP6-E, VP6-S, VP7: Proprietary high definition video codecs developed by On2 Technologies used in platforms such as Adobe Flash Player 8 and above, Adobe Flash Lite, Java FX and other mobile and desktop video platforms. Supports resolution up to 720p and 1080p.

Sorenson 3: A codec that is popularly used by Apple's QuickTime, basically the ancestor of H.264. Many of the QuickTime movie trailers found on the web use this codec.

Theora: Developed by the Xiph.org Foundation as part of their Ogg project, based upon On2 Technologies' VP3 codec, and christened by On2 as the successor in VP3's lineage, Theora is targeted at competing with MPEG-4 video and similar lower-bitrate video compression schemes.

WMV (Windows Media Video): Microsoft's family of video codec designs including WMV 7, WMV 8, and WMV 9. It can do anything from low resolution video for dial up internet users to HDTV. The latest generation of WMV is standardized by SMPTE as the VC-1 standard.

VC-1: SMPTE standardized video compression standard (SMPTE 421M). Based on Microsoft's WMV9 video codec. One of the 3 mandatory video codecs in both HD DVD and Blu-Ray high-definition optical disc standards. Commonly found in portable devices and on streaming video websites in its Windows Media Video implementation.

RealVideo: Developed by RealNetworks. A popular codec technology a few years ago, now fading in importance for a variety of reasons.

Cinepak: A very early codec used by Apple's QuickTime.

Huffyuv: Huffyuv (or HuffYUV) is a very fast, lossless Win32 video codec written by Ben Rudiak-Gould and published under the terms of the GPL as free software, meant to replace uncompressed YCbCr as a video capture format. See Lagarith as a more up-to-date codec.

Lagarith: A more up-to-date fork of Huffyuv is available as Lagarith.

SheerVideo: A family of ultrafast lossless QuickTime and AVI codecs, developed by BitJazz Inc., for RGB[A], Y'CbCr[A] 4:4:4[:4], Y'CbCr[A] and 4:2:2[:4] formats; for both 10-bit and 8-bit channels; for both progressive and interlaced data; for both Mac and Windows.

Mobiclip, a codec created by Actimagine, maximising mobile phone battery life when playing full length films on a smart-phone handset.

All of the codecs above have their qualities and drawbacks. Comparisons are frequently published. The tradeoff between compression power, speed, and fidelity (including artifacts) is usually considered the most important figure of technical merit.

reply to post by Goathief


Here is something a little smaller for you.

The programming provider has control over the amount of video compression applied to their video programming before it is sent to their distribution system. DVDs, Blu-ray discs, and HD DVDs have video compression applied during their mastering process, though Blu-ray and HD DVD have enough disc capacity that most compression applied in these formats is light, when compared to such examples as most video streamed on the internet, or taken on a cellphone. Software used for storing video on hard drives or various optical disc formats will often have a lower image quality, although not in all cases. High-bitrate video codecs with little or no compression exist for video post-production work, but create very large files and are thus almost never used for the distribution of finished videos. Once excessive lossy video compression compromises image quality, it is impossible to restore the image to its original quality.

By the way HD can be lossless.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by phantomDX]

[edit on 13-3-2009 by phantomDX]

One last thing.

The artifacts you see in the screen shots are not signs of the videos quality. You are mistaking two separate things. Quality of compression does not always mean quality of video. To determine if a video will reproduce a better version using another technique all you have to do is look at color,chroma,luminance.

The artifacts you point out are going to happen no matter what the quality of the video. That is simply bad lighting that is causing those.

If you have a digital tv service watch something that is dark and see how many of those same artifacts you run across.

reply to post by phantomDX


Look, you are contradicting yourself.

The crux of your argument was that the youtube video is the same quality as the original 8mm film.

That is patently not true.

Take your egotistical ramblings elsewhere, it's not worth wasting any more time on and sadly it appears you are achieving what you set out to do by making the owner of the tape so uncomfortable that he doesn't want to participate on this site any more. Well done.

reply to post by phantomDX

Originally posted by phantomDX

I never said HD was the same quality as film. I said that HD was the highest quality BESIDES FILM. You also took it for granted when you assumed incorrectly that HD is always sourced from film. Not sure where ya been but they have HD cams too and when you have a HD workflow which is using HD from shooting to finished product then technically it is superior to film. Ever seen SinCity or 300? HD from start to finish when a digital theater was the end product.

Those statements seem a bit contradictory.

Originally posted by phantomDX
Compression in general isn't a negative process.

You've got that backwards.

I have a good bit of experience working with video. To say compression of video is not a generally negative process is misleading, at best. Video compression involves removing data, which obviously will degrade quality in many instances. Of course there are exceptions, but it IS generally a negative process.

Originally posted by phantomDX

I assure you there is no better copy than the one you have seen.

And I assure you that you are wrong. To say that what we have seen, which has been compressed multiple times (first to DVD, then to YOUTUBE!) is the best copy of this incident is absolutely mind-boggling.

Originally posted by phantomDX
Degradation and artifacts are two separate things.

This video clip is figuratively dripping in digital compression artifacts, which absolutely, obviously, degrades the quality of the video. Do you not consider a video that is covered in compression artifacts to be degraded?

Keep digging that hole deeper, you've done a great job so far.



[edit on 13-3-2009 by Teebs]

Originally posted by phantomDX
One last thing.

The artifacts you see in the screen shots are not signs of the videos quality. You are mistaking two separate things. Quality of compression does not always mean quality of video.

You're absolutely right IF you mean that the artifacts we see in the posted YouTube video are not indicative of the quality of the original recording. I think most people here understand that fact.

The point being made is that this YouTube video is obviously NOT the best recording of this incident - precisely BECAUSE of the artifacts in it.

Apparently YOU are mistaking two separate things.

To determine the quality of the SOURCE video is video basics 101. The compression of the video does not hinder this. The higher quality the video the better the reproduction even with a higher compression. The lower the quality of the source the worse the reproduction will be even with low to lossless compression. You only have to look at color,chroma and luminance.

The artifacts you see are not due to bad compression but instead are from poor lighting. Had the room been brightly lit you would not see those. I just can't make that any simpler I'm sorry.

To the person who said they had experience with video. I'm not going to call you a liar but I have to wonder what level of experience you have had.

Not all compression is bad. If all compression was bad we would not have HD. or any of the broadcast formats. Even on DVD do you find yourself wondering why the quality is so bad? No. That is a compression. You are taking that definition further than it's meaning. Removing data or redundant data from pixel to pixel is not the same as removing data of importance. Such as image information, color, chroma, luminance. Or the other variable scenarios to determine picture quality.

You can ignore those facts if you want to but it still doesn't change that it is fact.

Why is it some people's vids on youtube look great yet others do not. Bad shooting techniques and poor lighting. A well lit webcam beats out a broadcast quality source if those two very important factors are not addressed.

I promise you this. I will continue this debate until you either accept what is real or you run off claiming victory using your own ignorance of digital media. Either way is fine with me.

I'm contradicting myself? Strange. The more facts I post the more you claim this.

So hard to fit everything into one post. Sorry for all the multiples.

Gonna address the perceived contradiction.

HD is not of better quality than film when film is the source but is close enough for an almost unnoticeable copy. Yet when you keep a very strict HD workflow meaning the camera is HD, you light your set for HD. You edit in HD using HD editors and decks. you finish in HD and finally send your digital copy to a digital theater you now have have an image that exceeds film quality in detail.

Nothing about that is a contradiction. Maybe hard for you to understand but not a contradiction.

The first thing that I thought when I saw the horse start moving was a cat. Cats use scratching posts (or whatever they can find) as a territorial instinct. It could be that the cat was just putting it's mark on it, so I thought I'd take a closer look, and I believe I found something.

If you jump to 4:45 and stare at the rocking horse's front right hoof, you will see what looks to me like the tip of a cats tale swing by the hoof. I believe it happens right at 4:47.

Does anyone else see this too, or have I gone mad?

Never mind.


[edit on 13-3-2009 by DancedWithWolves]

WOW that is a great video and see all the pros and cons of why this might be real or not.

What I really wonder is: Why did the filmers decide to remove the date stamp on the video.

If it was just simply left running to catch the child why take off the time stamp.

I am not sure if that was covered, I tried to read each post.

-Thanks
-Logan

reply to post by phantomDX

Originally posted by phantomDX

HD is not of better quality than film when film is the source but is close enough for an almost unnoticeable copy. Yet when you keep a very strict HD workflow meaning the camera is HD, you light your set for HD. You edit in HD using HD editors and decks. you finish in HD and finally send your digital copy to a digital theater you now have have an image that exceeds film quality in detail.

Nothing about that is a contradiction. Maybe hard for you to understand but not a contradiction.

I understand and agree with that, however that's not as ostensibly contradictory as what you posted previously. But really, that's besides the point.

What's that saying? Oh yea...

"Internet arguments are a test of endurance, not intelligence."

Consider yourself victorious, and let us wallow in our ignorance, please.

For real? Ignored? I'm sorry but in all my time on message boards I have never seen such a cowardly bunch. You act as if I am posting gutter comments and name calling. I address each and everything asked of me I have not got upset once even though the attack has turned on me. Which is fine that is what heated discussion is.

So I take it that questioning anything is frowned upon? Posting facts, albeit ignored facts replaced with misunderstanding of the highest order, is not welcomed?

Never rude, no name calling, no profanity for it's own sake, no whining, explained and re explained every fact that someone questioned, been attacked more viciously than anything I have said to the vid poster or family and yet I have not ran away nor did ignoring someone cross my mind.

I'm thinking someone is really really into ghosts.

reply to post by Teebs


So......you agreed with that but insist that something else now is contradictory.

Just point out what it is and I'll address it.

If you honestly believed that internet arguments were so inclined to be a measuring stick for ignorance not intelligence......then why are you a member of a site where controversy abounds? Why would you engage in the contest of ignorance yourself?

I hope you and the others understand that making me out like a troll is really strange. It begs the question do they even know how a real troll conducts themselves?